I use an email address that ends in .io and the amount of people that still ask me ".io? are you sure that's correct?" never ceases to amaze me.
Last time I booked a car at Hertz:
> Me: My email is hertz@capableweb.work
> Agent: Woah, you work here at Hertz? That's so cool
> Me: sure, can you remind me of the employee discount again?
So many email validations fail with a uncommon gTLD that I started switching everything to a .com domain instead. Sometimes I even get rejected when my email address contains the company name... "Sorry, your email seems invalid" is all I get, but changing one letter of the company name makes it pass the validation...
I'm not sure I would actually accept it if it went through, but I'm always curious to see if it works sometime.
It took me a while to know that FQDNs can (and sometimest must?) start at root with a period, meaning every address you've ever typed could have finished with a period (news.ycombinator.com.) and I recall some newspaper (NYT? News Yorker?) failing to test for that when people want to bypass their paywall. And this is a valid email address apparently: #!$%&’*+-/=?^_`{}|~@example.com
RFCs/codified norms by tech people are just weird to normal people.
> this is a valid email address apparently: #!$%&’*+-/=?^_`{}|~@example.com
If so, that's actually the same as #!$%&’*@example.com (mail user 'foo+bar' is the same as 'foo'). Many webforms/DBs don't know that.
Actually, no. To the best of my knowledge (and I'd be delighted to be corrected!), that's merely a convention that lots of providers (including GMail) conform to, but it's not part of the RFC or standards.
Don't get me wrong - it irritates me when that very-common behaviour isn't supported (and, at the very least, `+` shouldn't be considered an illegal character). But it's also technically-not-wrong to consider `a+1@test.com` as different from `a@test.com`.
> the local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the address.
In fact, that RFC specifically calls out that interpreting the `+` on non-local addresses is likely wrong:
> NOTE: Because the encoding of detailed addresses are site and/or implementation specific, using the subaddress extension on foreign addresses (such as the envelope "from" address or originator header fields) may lead to inconsistent or incorrect results.
EDIT to address your second point:
> After all - if they're being interpreted "as" user IDs, rather than as emails, does that really breach the RFC?
Well, technically no, the RFC is about SMTP so if you're not writing an SMTP implementation, you're not breaching it.
But RFCs aren't the law, so whether you're technically breaching it isn't really what's relevant. What _is_ relevant is that a system that treats foo+bar@quux.com the same as foo@quux.com is making assumptions about how email works that contradict the RFCs that define how email works. Whether that's a useful thing to do in practice is an engineering decision with tradeoffs. E.g., it's probably fine to assume it for a whitelisted set of domains where you know it to be true, like gmail.
For a long time I could access Bloomberg for free because they failed open when you did this
https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/gzr3cq/fyi_you_can_...
I agree with you, just trying to understand how it's connected to what I wrote initially.
> Me: sure, can you remind me of the employee discount again?
Which suggests that you would/did ask for (an employee) discount code when renting from that company.
Especially not Hertz, who doesn't honor claims anyway and is thankfully bankrupt.
So, it is easier to blacklist it altogether.
They haven't spammed that though, I don't think I've ever received any actual email to the "oracleblowsgoats" address. Probably keeps any sales droids from even bothering with me as well.
> Me: sure, can you remind me of the employee discount again?
Sooo… did it work?
Turns out she’s a nice girl, and she answered happily, “no, but that would be cool”. I smiled back while I died a little inside.
It’s always possible the person figures out this is not right before they get to the juicy bit. But I’ve been wrong before.
Nope. It confused the hell out of people.
Sadly, it is poorly adopted.
It is important to tune it a bit based on what you see after installing it to reduce the amount of bad suggestions.
Can't register at half the sites, and if you can register sometimes you can't log in. Banana Republic, in particular, lets me log in through one login flow, but not the one that's integrated into the checkout process.
<business-name>.inc.construction
I thought it was clever, but people do not understand them. Everything is .com in their mind.
firstname @ (nickname for firstname) + (last initial) .net
And it's amazing how hard it is to explain this to people over the phone or in store for email receipts, etc.
I'm shocked how few folks seems to be vaguely aware that .net as TLD exists even though it's one of the original TLDs from when they were first created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.net
To make matters worse, I chose a slightly uncommon tld.
I also have firstmiddlelast@gmail.com, and about half the time I tell someone my email address, the send it to the gmail one.
For services that actually require correspondence, I register the cool fun tld and a seperate .com for email
This also lets mailing lists het marked as spam without harming the deliverability of the other
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory
Domains often have little connection to their intended meaning.
They probably wouldn't care for your interpretation of the domain, they just see you supporting the people who relocated their entire group of people from their native homeland.
So, yes, you should be well aware of what the io domain represents and who you're supporting when buying one. Because it might bite you in the ass down the line and could have easily been avoided by just getting a different one without a storied past.
No "cancelling" going on, but just like a lot of other things, it's a risk that should be taken into account.
I'll take "Things that you'll never have to worry about IRL for 1000$ Alex" This reads like satire. What cross-circles of people who happen to recognize the .io and know its associated with a TLD for a country or nation and also happen to not know it's other innate purpose of representing input/output? This is as ridiculous as worrying about having a brand with a .tv domain and a negative perception of those from the Tuvalu island.
I was just pointing out that the domain is tied to a sad history.
At no point do I advocate for/against using it, nor did I pass any judgment on people who choose to use it.
The only opinion expressed in my comments is that the way the British and American governments have behaved is bad. If you take issue with that, let’s discuss but please don’t put words in my mouth.
Yes, associating tangentially-related controversies with previously innocuous topics is how things get canceled. Bringing up topics like this on a post about emoji emails implies that you want the conversation to flow in a certain direction; that's how conversation works. It's only missing Twitter and the word "problematic."
EG if my surname was "Gummersby" my email domain is "Gummers.by"
A friend with a last name that ends in ..skova wasn't so lucky as Vatican doesn't sell domain names.