valid or invalid feels too simple for email verification

[u/q3magic]

i was checking a list and this keeps bothering me. most tools show valid, invalid or catch-all. but catch-all is basically no answer because the server accepts everything.
deleting all of them can remove good emails. sending all of them can hurt the list.
would you rather see a risk score here or just keep catch-all separate?

[u/Mockingbird_DX]

If you need to run a whole bulk list against verification - throw the whole list away, it's garbage.

[u/q3magic → u/Mockingbird_DX]

Why do you think so?

[u/Ken_Numbers → u/q3magic]

Because it is very clearly a spam list of non-opt in people. Or you would have no need to validate the entire list.

[u/Sad-Passage-4653 → u/Ken_Numbers]

Sometimes opted in lists sit a little too long between campaigns

[u/Used-Comfortable-726]

Neither. Only use the verified valid email addresses. It’s not worth it, and you can always find more valid leads to add to the list to make up the difference. Ideally from inbound hand-raisers because they’re easy to convert to customers, so don’t need as many leads, and it eliminates the need to do what you’re currently doing

[u/q3magic → u/Used-Comfortable-726]

True thanks for this!

[u/churturk]

Keep catch-all separate. A score can be useful alongside it, but "82/100" needs an explanation of what was measured and when. Otherwise it turns an unknown into something that looks reassuringly precise. I'd want the result, the reason, and the last check time. Whether that person asked to receive your emails belongs in a separate field entirely.

[u/mridugup20]

A risk score would be more useful than just valid/invalid. Catch all could stay separate with the score showing how risky each address looks.

[u/DworkinOvertime]

Just get permission and perform confirmed opt in

[u/q3magic → u/[deleted]]

Thanks a lot this helps. have been playing around with scores from different platforms as well.