On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 11:13:18PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Adam McGreggor writes:
Or could we meet user expectations (real users, not geeks), [and allow glob syntax].
Definitely worth discussing, but my initial reaction is negative for the reasons discussed below.
Simples: *@mail.ru *@*mail.ru ?????@mail.ru
Are those anchored? At the beginning of string? At end?
'throughout'.
Is there really a use case for "?"? I don't see this as an obvious feature.
I'd imagine there could be some use for people wanting say, to handle five-character localparts of an address, although it's an in-elegant approach, it's something a user can understand, without needing to understand regexp ("all our new subscriptions are five characters before the @ sign. I want to block them").
Globs are also too blunt for the use case, especially since bad actors do deliberately use fine distinctions between well-known domains and their own sinkholes of depravity when phishing.
True. (I was picking on mail.ru, as it's one of the common ones that I find quite irresponsible).
Users are likely to be lazy, using "*@*mail.ru" to catch both "badactor@mail.ru" and "badactor@spamsource.mail.ru", trashing "niceguy@goodmail.ru"'s posts in the process.
Are they going to use *@* necessarily, or just *@? (unless they want subdomains when "*@*.mail.ru" might be acceptable).
Off the top of my head, the syntax would define if it's an absolute address (foo@example.com) vs a regexp.
"foo@example.com" is unambiguous, but "foo+mailman@example.com" is not. That's a big trap for users, who surely know exactly what they mean by that (and it's not foooooooooooomailman@example.com!)
Agree.
-- "applying logic to English slang is never a sound idea" -- Stephen Fry