Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdamJacobMuller | Hacker News Reader

> at least one . after the @ will do for this

technically not required...

  [adam@solomon]$ dig +noall +answer mx ai
  ai.   21572 IN MX 10 mail.offshore.ai.

View on HN

I've read this more than once, and it basically always boils down to: "The only way to verify an email address is to send an email to it."

In my opinion, the optimal validation is soft validation: "your email address doesn't look right, continue with it?"

> In my opinion, the optimal validation is soft validation: "your email address doesn't look right, continue with it?"

And then hope the server's e-mail workflow can handle subaddressing because you entered in something like "username+service@gmail.com".

Seems like a lot of folks don't like '+', even though it's been part of the e-mail system since the 1980s.

Yep. Back in university I was acquainted with the fellow who set up the MX record for .ai (and assigned himself the memorable address n@ai). IIRC he was involved in planning an academic conference to be held there.

For the record, it is owned by Anguilla (in the Caribbean):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.ai

Yeah I met him once. I didn't want to call him out on it :)

As soon as I read the OP's comment I knew someone would reply to say the dot was not technically required, but I didn't expect to see an actual publicly addressable example!

I actually searched and was surprised no one beat me to it.

ok, impressed. Happily the mail gem will see that as a valid address :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com