this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
876 points (99.1% liked)

Programmer Humor

25827 readers
3006 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
anzo@programming.dev
Feyter@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
pylapp@programming.dev
876
Everyone knows what an email address is, right? (Quiz) (e-mail.wtf)
submitted 2 days ago by TheBigRoomXXL@leminal.space to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 96 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

I scored 16/21 on https://e-mail.wtf/ and all I got was this lousy text to share on social media.

This was fun!

Edit: people, upvote the OP, not me

[–] lemmyng@piefed.ca 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

13/21 here. Mostly got hung up on several "this was valid in earlier RFC, and later removed" kind of situations. There are several where I picked the correct answer, but where I know many websites that won't accept it as valid, and that's not even the more esoteric ones.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 37 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah I feel like the correct answer for anything obsoleted by a more recent RFC should be "Invalid".

[–] errer@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago

Complaints about the quiz? Send them to 💩@💩

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

But they will work, and according to the spec, you have to build your system so that it can handle those cases. Obsolete doesn't mean incorrect or invalid, just a "you shouldn't do this any more".

Obsolete Syntax
Earlier versions of this standard allowed for different (usually more liberal) syntax than is allowed in this version. Also, there have been syntactic elements used in messages on the Internet whose interpretation have never been documented. Though some of these syntactic forms MUST NOT be generated according to the grammar in section 3, they MUST be accepted and parsed by a conformant receiver.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2822#section-4

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 6 points 2 days ago

Well shit, yeah, that "MUST be accepted and parsed" is pretty explicit. That sucks. What is even the point of revising standards? How the fuck do we ever get rid of some of these bad ideas?

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 days ago

Some of those "obsolete" things are outright blocked for specific reasons. For example, routing addresses through multiple servers. It was abused by spammers, so it's almost always denied these days.

Looks like this:

<@foo.example.com@bar.example.com:123@example.com>
[–] First_Thunder@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I got 14/21

[–] dditty@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

Me too and it said that is the amount you'd get if you just picked "valid" for every response. Lmao

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 1 points 1 day ago

Don't tell me what to do!

[–] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

Yay! Same. But only because I've already heard of some email craziness before.

[–] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago

yay 16/21 club