On Thursday 31 March 2016 02:03:26 Florian Apolloner wrote: > Having a new field seems overkill to me -- a new validation routine which > is less strict is something we should be able to do without backward compat > considerations.
Strictly speaking, the new method is not less strict. It does forbid things the current validation lets through (mostly wrt unicode domains, IIRC). > The reasoning for this is easy: As long as it is not proven > that the current regex covers only valid addresses a less strict validation > is not harming anyone. Especially since even if an email address is > technically valid, it does not mean that is actually exists -- so you will > have to send an email to verify the address anyways… > But we could, considering this, just call it a "backwards incompatible change". Shai.
