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.

    • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      I have my own domain that uses a specific 2-letter ccTLD - it’s a short domain variation of my surname (think “goo.gl” for Google). I’ve been using it for years, for my email.

      Over those years, I have discovered an astonishing number of fuckheaded organisations whose systems insist I should have an email address with a “traditional” TLD at the end.

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        My first email address was @k.ro (a free email provider many many years ago) and many websites thought a valid second-level domain name cannot be just one letter

      • stickmanmeyhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        A few years back I bought a .family domain for my wife and I to have emails at ourlastname.family That lasted a week because almost every online service wouldn’t accept it. Now we have a .org

        • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Doesn’t surprise me one bit. I’ve noticed that a lot of websites will only accept .com and a few will only accept email addresses from popular providers (Gmail, Hotmail, outlook, etc.)

          My guess is that it’s trying to reduce spam and fake account generation.

          • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            My guess is that it’s trying to reduce spam and fake account generation.

            Thus preventing the growth of any small providers and further entrenching Microsoft, Google, Apple, and a handful of others as the only “viable” options.

          • MBM@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Feels very relevant to the fediverse, with how people tend to compare it to email.

          • Throwaway@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, that’s it pretty much.Like 99% of your legitimate users are going to be standard gmail/yahoo/hotmail/etc. You see a user from ten minute mail, it’s probably some shady shit.

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

              Not necessarily shady.

              I use 10 minute email if a merchant requires me enter an email account before seeing the total price on an item (including shipping). That’s the most common pattern I’ve seen. My guess is that they want to ping you to complete the purchase.

              Or a website might require free registration in order to view the content.

              One place I use 10-minute email is actually Spotify. I didn’t want to give them my Gmail address since your name is exposed to the world via their sharing API.

              Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of bad uses for it as well. But privacy minded people use it too.

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

        Same. There are a lot of sites that just outright refuse to accept my email address that I’ve had for years, because it’s not a .com TLD.

        • nybble41@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          CVS and E*Trade both refused to accept my fairly standard [email protected] address during initial registration, but had no issue changing to that address once the account was created. It would be nice if their internal teams communicated a bit better.

    • aard@kyu.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not aware of any correct email validations. I’m still looking for something accepting a space in the localpart.

      Also a surprising number of sites mess with the casing of the localpart. Don’t do that - many mailservers do accept arbitrary case, but not all. [email protected] and [email protected] are two different mail addresses, which may point to the same mailbox if you are lucky.

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

        The only correct regex for email is: .+@.+

        So long as the address has a local part, the at sign, and a hostname, it’s a valid email address.

        Whether it goes somewhere is the tricky part.

        • xantoxis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Sorry, this is not a correct regex for an email address.

          Sending using mail on a local unix system? You only need the local part.

          STOP VALIDATING NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES. Send a verification email. Full stop. Don’t do anything else. You really want to do this anyway, because it’s a defense against bots.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only useful email validation is “can I get an MX from that” and “does it understand what I’m saying in that SMTP”. Anything else is someone that have too much free time.

        • vithigar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Definitely a timesaver. Much faster to get incorrect email validation that way then to try building it yourself.

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

            Skip the building step and go straight to pulling your hair out over why it’s not working! Efficiency!

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          That probably lead to this exchange.

          Stack Overflow is useful, but…it needs more than a little parsing for useful answers.

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

          I know (hope) you’re being facetious, because the objectively best way to do email validation is to send a fuckin email to the provided address.

    • 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.

          • HotChickenFeet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            I feel like using a@[IPv6:2001:db8::1] is asking for trouble everywhere online.

            But its tempting to try out, not many people would expect this.

            • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              try [email protected] or user@d.e.a.d.b.e.e.f.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.a.b.c.d.e.f.0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4.ip6.arpa just for the giggles. Mix it with BANG-Adressing:

              123.45.67.89.in-addr.arpa!d.e.a.d.b.e.e.f.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.a.b.c.d.e.f.0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4.ip6.arpa!user

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    That is 100% a bot, and whoever made the bot just stuck in a custom regex to match “[email protected]” instead of using a standardized domain validation lib that actually handles cases like yours correctly.

    Edit: the bots are redirecting you to bots are redirecting you to bots. This is not a bug. This is by design.

  • 48954246@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The best way to validate an email address is to sent it an email validation link.

    Anything outside of that is a waste of effort.

  • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    No, dots are NOT necessary. Actually you do not even need to supply a domain or a top level domain because mails then default to the default system which is usually localhost.

    But even for routed mail there doesn’t need to be a dot.

    There is still valid Bang-Adressing for UUCP routed emails:

    !bigsite!foovax!barbox!me

    This is a valid email which basically means “send my email to bigsite, from there to foovax, then to barbox, to the user me.”

    And if you are in a playful mood - mix FQDN and BANG addressing…

    A couple of years ago I made Hotmail crash by sending a mail to googlemail.de!hotmail.com!googlemail.com!hotmail.de!googlemail.ca!hotmail.ca!googlemail.fr!hotmail.fr!.. [repeated it for 32kByte] …!myuseraccount - their server literally crashed completely all over the world for like 15 minutes. I am so proud of myself but then it was their fault for not complying to RfC822.

      • Crass Spektakel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m assuming by “dot” you meant @

        In fact both are optional. With FQDN-Adressing a user without domain defaults to localhost, with Bang-Adressing there is no @ because the last system is left for interpretation of the last receiver and if he consideres it a user, so be it.