1133
Lemmy.world is being "attacked" with random communities
(lemmy.world)
Welcome to Lemmy.World General!
This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.
🪆 About Lemmy World
🧭 Finding Communities
Feel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!
Also keep an eye on:
For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!
💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:
Rules
Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.
0. See: Rules for Users.
Don't even need that, 1 click temporary email boxes everywhere
That's what I used.... I have no intention of being a troll or asshole, but I don't want social media like this platform linked to me IRL and never have.
Personally I just use a dumping ground email address. Just an address i use for any website I don’t particularly trust that I never look at unless I know there’s a confirmation email waiting for me
True, but a common thing websites do is block those domains, at least the easier to find ones. Nearly nobody blocks gmail.
You could block using + in a Gmail address.
Some sites do this and it's annoying. A better check is to compare the part before the + if it's Gmail.
Yeah, that's probably better.
You can add a
.
anywhere in the username part of a GMail address.u.ser.na.m.e@gmail.com
is the same asusername@gmail.com
Whether or not Lemmy supports this at this point, I dunno, but it's easy enough to code your username verification to remove all +s and periods before continuing to ensure uniqueness.
Period can be removed with gmail emails. However, for +s, the whole part after + and before @ needs to be removed if removing+ as that part indicates the folder emails come to. Yet, the same issue would still remain for any Google Workspace emails as they also support + but doesnt end with gmail domain.
Ah yes, you corrected my logic on the +. Thanks for the added insight on the Google workspace.
That is not actually true. The + method works, but not the . method.
According to Google it works