Hey, On the email validation waterfall, it works a bit differently by going through all validation providers even if the first one has been found

Question

Hey, On the email validation waterfall, it works a bit differently by going through all validation providers even if the first one has been found. And it seems that all 7 sources needs to be validated for it to come through. Is there a chance that this could provide a false negative? In other words, if one validation source is inaccurate and comes back as false, this could lead to the final output as wrong Is there a particular source which is seen as more accurate?

GTM Practitioner · Accepted Answer

I am using this which goes through all the providers. It seems you recommended ZeroBounce as a provider source?

GTM Practitioner · Accepted Answer

[user] Sounds like you are using the typical Clay waterfall, where for every email finder you use, you validate with zero bounce.

And it seems like zero bounce shows valid, but yet it goes to the next email finder, which then wastes credits.

Not sure if that’s what you’re experiencing?

GTM Practitioner · Accepted Answer

To give more context- By default, Clay turns on the ‘Only Safe to Send emails as valid’ settings. And when it comes to email validation, there are generally 3 broad categories.  Valid
Catch All
Invalid  The ‘Only Safe to Send emails as valid’ settings essentially treat catch-all emails as invalid, which results in it going to the next email finder.

Hey, On the email validation waterfall, it works a bit differently by going through all validation providers even if the first one has been found

3 Answers

Add your take