More like “LinkedIn considered broken”?
yes, just because some website doesn’t accept your valid TLD doesn’t mean your valid TLD is badj, it means that website is bad.
I’d try “cleverness considered stupid”: Had Linkedin gone for the simpler route of not trying to validate something it doesn’t know how to define, it wouldn’t have this problem. Trying to “validate” email addresses works out the same way: email@example.com and "I\ Love\ Bees"."Don't\ You"@[127.0.0.1] are both valid email addresses.
"I\ Love\ Bees"."Don't\ You"@[127.0.0.1]
(Or maybe this should be called the “Spinal Tap Axiom”: “It’s such a fine line between stupid and clever.”)
This is not a .engineering problem. It is more of a problem with hardcoded fixed lists of what is a valid TLD (and sometimes a ccTLD). IANA maintains a list of valid TLDs and it is good practice to validate against it from time to time if you need to make sure that a submitted URL or email address points to at least something that is under a TLD.
My guess would be regex validation with a maximum TLD length, considering the author said it accepted a shorter but invalid TLD.
If you want to validate email addresses in a basic way, look for an @ and a . after it. That’ll catch a lot of mistakes.
If you want to validate them in a more thorough way, do that, then split on the @, and then do a DNS lookup on what comes after. If there are MX records, then you know that you can send mail to that. Whether what comes before the @ is deliverable will be impossible to say (only the mail server can decide that), but you’ve done absolutely the best you possibly can.
Anything else just seems silly.
More like “LinkedIn Considered Harmful”, amirite.
Related: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmfull :D
I have email on Gmail with long username (16 characters). I’ve seen websites which treated it as invalid because it’s too long. And many paper forms which have field for email had too few rectangles to fit it too.
See also: Stop Validating Email Addresses With Regex.
My .technology domain has also been rejected by a couple websites. But not that often!
In the old days, you could get in trouble (fines, etc) for claiming to be an engineer without a Professional Engineering license.
I believe this is the case for Canada and some (many? most?) other countries. My previous employer acquired a couple Canadian companies which triggered a much larger, company-wide, discussion regarding “engineering” job titles (e.g., software engineer, sales engineer, …) I want to say that Texas and a couple of other states are similar in that they require licensure to use the title. I think Microsoft changed some of their certification titles for a similar reason.
The U.S. doesn’t generally have any restrictions on using engineer in a title, even in states/fields where there’s a PE exam. Texas now has a software engineering PE exam, but it’s still not an actual requirement for calling yourself a “software engineer”. This is similar to other fields of engineering, where there’ve been chemical engineering and petroleum engineering PE exams in Texas for decades, but the vast majority of people working in the petrochemicals industry in Texas holding jobs with those titles aren’t PEs. It’s generally only required for people with direct signature authority over things that are specifically required by statute to be approved by a PE, like signing off on final blueprints.