[anonomousename]

Out of curiosity, what did you search? Searching “gmail plus” gives plenty of results, some of which are from Google themselves.

https://support.google.com/a/users/answer/9282734?hl=en#:~:t... "Create variations of your email address"

[permo-w]

I searched "slash in gmail address" "google mail extra characters usage" "ampersand in gmail" "implemented characters in gmail" and "slash in gmail address"

not a single one provided any evidence of anything other than + and extra dots. parent commenter is talking out of his nether regions

[soulofmischief]

I'm sorry, but when did I claim anything of the sort? This thread is about someone using a "+". This is the exact kind of goalpost-moving I expected of you. Just take your L and get off the internet for the day.

[permo-w]

when? here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36846441

>commenter points to wikipedia page showing that + is a generally accepted standard

>I accept this but point to the page's other largely unimplemented characters, to show that email standards are not clearly defined, and it's not surprising there are services not implementing rarer characters like +

>you accidentally imply that all the characters I list are implemented

>you also claim this is a "well-established standard" - something easily disprovable - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29319221 - so unsurprising you refuse to defend it

essentially because my comment was getting downvoted and people were disagreeing with me, you felt comfortable 1) starting off rudely ("this is such an awful take"), 2) overreaching from the established facts, and 3) being childish and accusatory when questioned

the way you act around people in positions of weakness is your real self

[soulofmischief]

I will reply only one more time, because this is genuine flamebait.

> essentially because my comment was getting downvoted and people were disagreeing with me, you felt comfortable 1) starting off rudely ("this is such an awful take"), 2) overreaching from the established facts, and 3) being childish and accusatory when questioned

my criticism of your acting in bad faith has nothing to do with the fact that others did as well. Pointing that out was an attempt to allow you to understand that you may be incorrect.

as for overreaching or "being childish", that's unsubstantiated and imagined.

>you accidentally imply that all the characters I list are implemented

friend, I never did this, you simply misunderstood. You seem to have a problem with blaming others for your own mistakes.

>you also claim this is a "well-established standard" - something easily disprovable - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29319221 - so unsurprising you refuse to defend it

This is the definition of cherry-picking. The standard was established by several mail providers and is codified all over the web: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Local-part

If a naive developer doesn't adhere to this established standard, it doesn't suddenly make it not a standard; the developer is not following it. The standard is set by the mail providers.

> the way you act around people in positions of weakness is your real self

This is an absurd statement. If you are feeling persecuted in the comments section of a thread about email standards, you might need to unplug for a while. "people in positions of weakness" lol, this is Hacker News, no one cares about downvotes. Please just back off of this conversation, this isn't something you need to "win" or something. You're arguing in bad faith, plain and simple.

[permo-w]

>repeatedly point to a wikipedia page and ignore any discussion of the actual contents of the page or how we define a standard, stamping your foot and saying "I’m right and it's so impossible I'm wrong that anyone with a different viewpoint must be lying"

overreaching? who knows? but sadly I think we can substantiate "childish". and let's be real, how can we describe repeated ad hominems and unfounded accusations in place of actual discussion? bad faith flamebait