I think in that case it might a matter of length, rather than symbols, but I've never put in the effort to pin down the problem exactly, now that my password manager settings work.
Like, I caught them doing the "ask for FQDN but reject FQDNs" a couple of weeks ago in either Route53 or something immediately adjacent (i.e. where people who know better should have been involved), yesterday SageMaker stopped launching kernels because of a "known issue" (don't worry, it doesn't meet the definition of downtime though), and today I had to diagnose an unresponsive control panel by opening the console and digging up a REST error response that they didn't bother to handle in any way.
Everything about AWS is not merely broken and half-assed, but fractally so, so that even after using a service for years you are still uncovering severe caveats and awkward limitations. Password validation traps fit that pattern to a T.
I have in the past normalized email addresses per the rules I know specific providers have to help people login. Did I sign up with mike+hn@ or mike+hackernews@?
For example: ycombinator.com@example.com.
Nobody blocks dots in email addresses, although I have had some sites in the past email me using the first part of my email address as my name; it's amusing to open an email from example.com saying "Hi, example.com!"
I do now have a hyphen in my last name which is not accepted everywhere. Some companies accept the hyphen but replace it with a space (some credit cards), some reject the hyphen so I either make it all one word or add my own space.
Essentialy, if your site targeted every age demographic or even had a preference for older and/or less tech savy demographics, how can you prioritize the edge case that <0.00001% of your users has their own lastname.tld vs is entering an incorrect email address.
I agree that it's a huge UX problem - one of the reasons why a lot of online checkout processes have you type your email address in two separate fields, twice. Without some guardrails in place, there is probably a not insignificant number of people who typo their email address in a single field, or type a malformed address, and then complain to customer service or their credit card company when they never receive an emailed invoice.
Worse case scenario, you could use firstname@subdomain.lastname.com. Even something like 1.lastname.com would likely work.
I suppose it depends on your reasons for using your own domain in the first place but having to employ the use of a gmail acount negates a lot of the privacy & security of a personal domain IMO.
That's incredibly obtuse of them; what possible reason could they have for doing that?
https://haacked.com/archive/2007/08/21/i-knew-how-to-validat...
For any programmer that's ever tried to validate email addresses it's an eye opener.
Other hosts (e.g. Mailbox.org, the host I'm with now) can support the feature as well, with some configuration.
- The History of the URL, https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-history-of-the-url/
(Notice how the “.” isn’t included in the hyperlink)
> When / how / why would you use the trailing dot?
The root has children like "com", "net", "uk", etc.
There are DNS records at the root level. Try this command:
host -t ANY .
It used to be pretty common to put your organization's domain in /etc/resolv.conf so that you can use the short version of a hostname. If your company is example.com and you have example.com in the DNS search path, you can type a command like "ping www", and it will do the same thing as "ping www.example.com". Most software still supports this, but it isn't used by that many people. (Some organizations don't put their domain in /etc/resolv.conf, and many users don't know they can abbreviate hostnames in this way.)
You would typically use the trailing dot if you want to be sure the DNS lookup doesn't use the search path and checks only against the root of the DNS namespace. You also use the trailing dot in some data files for DNS servers.
In many cases the trailing dot is not necessary, practically speaking, because the DNS resolver has special logic where if you give it a string that contains any dots (not just trailing), the search order is rearranged to try the root first instead of last. (In /etc/resolv.conf, this is controlled by the "ndots" option.)
So if you look up "www.example.com", it will check for the existence of "www.example.com." before it checks for "www.example.com.example.com." instead of the other way around. Which is good because only the first is likely to exist. If you look up "www", it will check for "www.example.com." before it checks for "www.", which again is a good heuristic because again the first is the one that likely exists.
> The presence of a host subcomponent within a URI does not imply that the scheme requires access to the given host on the Internet. In many cases, the host syntax is used only for the sake of reusing the existing registration process created and deployed for DNS, thus obtaining a globally unique name without the cost of deploying another registry. However, such use comes with its own costs: domain name ownership may change over time for reasons not anticipated by the URI producer. In other cases, the data within the host component identifies a registered name that has nothing to do with an Internet host. We use the name "host" for the ABNF rule because that is its most common purpose, not its only purpose.
So, the fact that the host part of http(s) URLs are resolved using DNS is not a limitation of the URL spec. Instead that's an implementation restriction.
The thing that really annoys me though isn't email address handling. It's credit card number and social security number entry fields.
For credit cards, the number of times you should have to specify which type of card you're entering is literally zero. All credit cards of the same type (e.g. Visa) begin with the same number sequence. Visa always starts with 4, so, if I type 4 as the first digit, just call it a Visa card. Do the Luhn checksum validation to make sure it's a valid number and that I probably entered it correctly, and try to run the charge. If it fails, then provide an appropriate error message.
For SSN fields, the thing that annoys me is that there are basically 2 common ways of entering the number: XXX-XX-XXXX and XXXXXXXXX. So many sites and apps only accept one of the two and will complain about the other. It's ridiculous, because the presence or absence of the dashes literally has no bearing on the validity of the number. Just let me enter it the way I want.
Laziness seems most likely for that reason, but, on top of that, it's not like you even have to go to Stack Overflow to find an implementation. Wikipedia has one! Wiki. Pedia.
Just take my input, run the checksum, check that my expiration date isn't in the past and that the CVV value is the correct number of digits, and just run the charge. It's not like if I mistype my MasterCard's first digit as a 4 that it's going to work anyway. Just do the checks that are feasible, and then just run the charge.
Enter number, result is: 125-535-2112 .
On the plus side it was predictable and I was able to eventually enter the number something like 2153552121 and have it appear on page as 123-555-1212. When I encountered this a second time a few days later (reordering due to DOA) I discovered pasting the entire number in allowed the 'automatic' nature to add dashes correctly.
The correct answer to me is to strip out non-numbers and then verify the number is a valid phone number (which should be easier than programmatically determining names or dates).
The worst are the companies who (somewhat strictly, to varying degrees) verify the address of credit cards. I've barely managed to always verify by shortening into a grotesque form of the address that logistically makes no sense, but is apparently just close enough to match whatever fuzzy formula is used (eg. Levenshtein distance).
I know what you mean for a different reason. Explaining that yes, my street name really starts with the word “Avenue” is getting really old.
Dear everyone: Denmark does NOT have states. Literally dozens of times have I encountered a form that absolutely requires that I input something in the state field before they will ship my stuff. A sufficiently motivated individual could traverse the major landmasses of Denmark by bicycle in about a day[0], we don't need no damn states.
I usually put in "NULL" for state, and hope something breaks.
(Also, nowhere in the world except the US has "zip codes", and about 60 countries don't even have an equivalent postal code at all...)
Well, that hasn't stopped similarly-sized Switzerland with 26 cantons. ;)
From what I can recall, the number of times I've had to specific what type of card I have when filling out an online form is zero, because every form I can remember using did autodetect it. I admit I'm fairly young (only have had a card for 10-12 years), but from the amount of frustration you seem to have about this, I feel like you must have run into it much more recently than that.
(I'm not going to say MAY because I can't remember the exact wording, but I did have cause to look it up recently.)
In the same way, if a website does not do www->nowww / nowww->www redirect (example.com / www.example.com), you might have www version be logged in and nowww version be logged out or vice versa (depending how exactly it creates its cookies).