I also reached out to them on Twitter but they directed me to this form. I followed up with them on Twitter with what happened in this screenshot but they are now ignoring me.

  • jwt@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Probably, from what I can see the address in question isn’t really that exotic. but an email regex that validates 100% correctly is near impossible. And then you still don’t know if the email address actually exists.

    I’d just take the user at their word and send an email with an activation link to the address that was supplied. If the address is invalid, the mail won’t get delivered. No harm done.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Personally I don’t think that sucks or is even wrong. Case-independent text processing is more cumbersome. ‘U’ and ‘u’ are two different symbols. And you have to make such rules for every language a part of your processing logic.

        If people can take case-dependence for passwords (or official letters and their school papers), then it’s also fine for email addresses.

        The actual problem is cultural, coming from DOS and Windows where many things are case-independent. It’s an acquired taste.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      The best of validation is just to confirm that the email contains a @ and a . and if it does send it an email with a confirmation link.

      • __dev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        TLDs are valid in emails, as are IP V6 addresses, so checking for a . is technically not correct. For example a@b and a@[IPv6:2001:db8::1] are both valid email addresses.