You’re not anonymous. I know your name, email, and company.

Re:You’re not anonymous. I know your name, email, and company. by bathat on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @08:39PM (#4908130)

I think a lot of sites have caught on to the + trick, though, because more are more disallow the + character in the email validator.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You’re not anonymous. I know your name, email, and company. by pyre on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @10:21PM (#4908432)

More like laziness. They probably only allow something like:

  ^[a-z0-9_.]+@(?:[a-z0-9-]+\.)+\.[a-z0-9]+$

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You’re not anonymous. I know your name, email, and company. by jfoster on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @03:30AM (#4909212)

In my experience it's been ignorance rather than laziness. I suppose you could argue that the root cause of the ignorance is laziness. If someone is writing a validator, they probably ought to check what constitutes valid input.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You’re not anonymous. I know your name, email, and company. by rhizome on Wednesday December 12, 2012 @01:17PM (#4911600)

It's not a sign of catching on, but of using an old email validation pattern from the days of Matt's Script Archive (seemingly). It's the sign of a website that has used cargo-code programmers. You're probably just seeing it more because you're trying to use plus-addressing more often (confirmation bias), but it's been this way for years and years. It's actually better now than it used to be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You’re not anonymous. I know your name, email, and company. by kefs on Tuesday December 11, 2012 @09:23PM (#4908278)

I wish they wouldn't..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Valid_email_addr...

[ Parent | on HN ]