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
      24
      ·
      7 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
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 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
        1
        ·
        7 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
          1
          ·
          7 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
            2
            ·
            7 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
            ·
            7 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
            ·
            7 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
              ·
              7 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
        0
        ·
        7 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
          ·
          7 months ago

          CVS and E*Trade both refused to accept my fairly standard user@mydomain.info 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
      4
      ·
      7 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. MyName@example.com and myname@example.com 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
        ·
        7 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
          7 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
      1
      ·
      7 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
          ·
          7 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
            ·
            7 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
          ·
          7 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
          ·
          7 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
      10
      ·
      7 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.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 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
          0
          ·
          7 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
            ·
            7 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
              ·
              7 months ago

              try user@123.45.67.89.in-addr.arpa 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

        • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          TLDs could theoretically have MX records too! Email addresses as specified also support IPv6 addresses! The regex would need to be .+@.+ and at this point it’s probably easier to just send an email.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m with you, and I agree that is technically correct, but I believe the sheer number of people who might accidentally write “gmail” instead of “gmail.com” compared to people using an IPv6 address (seems like a spam bot) or using a TLD like “admin@com” make requiring the dot worthwhile.

            • PoolloverNathan@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That’s why I have an “allow anyway” button for addresses that look misspelled but are still technically valid.

              Edit: believe it or not, that was a typo.

    • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s what it looks like to me too

      I could probably write a RegEx for email format validation that’s accurate, but why would I when there are ones already written and readily available that covers all possible legit variations on the standard? I never understood why people insist on writing their own (crap) RegEx for something with as many possible variations they can miss like email…

      And that one isn’t even a weird edge case! It’s a domain with a sub domain, if they can’t even cover that case then it’s an extra shitty RegEx

  • sobriquet@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    I used to have an email address “myfirstname@i.am”. I thought it was really cool… until I kept having issues logging into sites that didn’t understand how email worked. I now use “companyimgivingmyemailto@myname.com”, and I just confuse humans who think I work at their company, and that I don’t understand how email works…

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    That is 100% a bot, and whoever made the bot just stuck in a custom regex to match “user@sld.tld” 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.

    • Syndic@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is not a bug. This is by design.

      I’d say it’s a bug in the design as it clearly fails to work with a completely fine email.

      • TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        They meant that they are intentionally trying NOT to help the customer, hopefully they just give up at some point. (That’s why they are redirecting to bots and not to an actual human.)

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It might even be worse than that, imagine if they let one of those learning algorithms handle their customer service.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That all loads of companies that do. In this case it would be better because it would actually understand what constitutes an email rather than running some standard script with no comprehension of what it’s doing.

        The difference between AI and automated script responses is AI is actually thinking at some level.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I think AI generally tries to bullshit more often than participating in what the user wants to accomplish. It would be like speaking with customer support who don’t actually work for the company, is a pathological liar, and have a vested interest in making you give up as fast as possible.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s not what AI is though.

            An AI is pretty good and doing whatever it’s programmed to do it’s just you have to check that the thing it’s programmed to do is actually the thing you want it to do. Things like chatGPT our general purpose AI and essentially exist more or lesses a product demonstration than an actual industry implementation.

            When companies use AI they use their own version on their own trained data sets.

            • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              If you program your learning algorithm to “solve” customer problems in the shortest amount of time possible with the least amount of concessions possible, it will act exactly as I just described. The company would have to be run by buffoons to give the phone machines the ability to change user account information or have the ability to issue refunds, so the end result is that they can only answer simple questions until the person on the other end gives up.

              • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                That is not how AI works.

                It’s not programmed at all, it’s a developed network, it evolves in the same way that the human brain evolves, saying it will try and solve the problem in the shortest possible time is like saying that human agents will try and solve the problem in the shortest possible time. It’s a recursive argument.

                You have rather proved my original point which is that everyone talking about AI doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

                You might say “oh but an artificial intelligence could never possibly match the intelligence of humans” but why would that be the case? There’s nothing magical or special about human intelligence.

                • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Wow you really went off on an irrelevant tirade, there. There is a defined accuracy when you set up the learning algorithm, there is an end goal result that you define with which the program chooses and eliminates “choices” for a given generation. You program it, it doesn’t magically conjure from a witches cauldron or a wish from a genie.

                  And also, we’re not talking about actual intelligence and sentience here, we’re talking about AI as in modern Learning Algorithms, as I explicitly stated at the start of this thread before you used the term AI for the first time in this thread. Idk why you’re comparing it to human level intelligence when it’s barely passable as a poor and easily abused mimicry.

                  With your repetitive, nonsensical, baseless logic I think you would pass for one of those glorified chatbots.

  • squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Incompetent verification is definitely a problem, like they applied the most simplistic concept of ‘what’s a valid email address’. I had a problem like this with a website that needed an address, trying to sign up for a phone at my new house. My address went like ‘123123 State Road 533’ The name of the road was State Road 533, that is, as in Highway 533. However, the address interpreter read it as a road called State Rd and ignored the 533, and told me the address wasn’t found.

    • Freeman@lemmy.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Its quite common on email domains.

      I have a .email gTLD and I am frequently told its not a valid domain. Its getting better but apparently many forms only consider .com, .org, .edu etc valid.

  • Ratulf@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    If that’s their standard, you can probably just edit the html to make the login button active and then sign-in.

  • Toes♀@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    You’re talking to a bot that has a crappy parser and doesn’t understand what a subdomain is.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is why you never attempt to validate an email address beyond requiring an @ followed by a period, and send a verification email

  • anguo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Get the bot to tell you it’s connecting you to someone like you did, then give it a fake email address to get past that point.

    • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I tried to start that video, but I got “Failed with error code 1003, see logs for more info”. (I don’t think I have have access to any logs, so I guess that part isn’t for me.) Maybe Chipotle wasn’t able to watch it either, and so that’s why their system is broken.