This is also my preferred approach. If I can send you an email and you can verify that you have access to that email, your email is "valid enough" for me. The

This is also my preferred approach. If I can send you an email and you can verify that you have access to that email, your email is "valid enough" for me. Then, the validation is basically "is there an @ and after a dot in there?". I find that after that, every hour spent on improving the validation will just cause more emails falsely flagged as invalid, more support requests from the people who couldn't sign up with valid emails, it's code we need to maintain, anytime edits the validation logic risks breaking sign ups completely. So with more "improvements" to the validation, you just cause more problems. Then why do it? I hear the reputation arguments, but in practice, it never happened to any of the organizations I worked for. What happens though very often is naive engineers trying to solve problems the business doesn't have with knowledge they lack...