Programming

17364 readers

172 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Strings do too many things (buttondown.email)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Which ones? In RFC 5322 every address contains an addr-spec at some point, which in turn must include an @. RFC 6854 does not seem to change this. Or did I misread something?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

EDIT: I'M DUMB I THOUGHT YOU MEANT A LITERAL "." , that regex is indeed correct.

Original:

This is a valid address: user.name@[IPv6:2001:db8:1ff::a0b:dbd0]

Relevant spec: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5321#section-4.1.3

And you all doubted me... :P

Edit: Wait, I also don't think local-part even needs a "." in it? [email protected] should be valid as well.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And it's matched by .+@.+ as it contains an @.

Remember, we're taking about regular expressions here so .+ means "a sequence of one or more arbitrary characters". It does not imply that an actual dot is present.

(And I overlooked the edit. Oops.)