Zerobounce API Change: Urgent Matter Regarding Waterfall Enrichment and Catch-All Sub-Status | Clay

Zerobounce API Change: Urgent Matter Regarding Waterfall Enrichment and Catch-All Sub-Status

Hello everyone, apparently zerobounce changed their API or something. I think this is a urgent matter because maybe other people was using the waterfall enrichment like I was. Do you know something on this? Previously we were using the status. But now they have sub status saying catch-all, and I don't know what to believe. Can you pls help? Video below: Table: https://app.clay.com/workspaces/47853/tables/t_Iia2BCydOuia/views/gv_exbcEgfJcAOF

✅1

20 comments

Stefan K.
·
·
Thanks you for flagging this Pedro A. - I can see how that is confusing. We will look into this Keethu R.
Stefan K.
·
·
Update for you Pedro A. - the team is actively working on an update to the waterfall that makes zerobounce the default validation provider and accounts for this change. In the meantime I recommend you use sub status as the one to trust, as it seems zerobounce considers "catch all" as a valid email
Pedro A.
·
·
are you sure the sub status is right? Because I saw more than 50 emails and they are all catch all.. thats very weird
Pedro A.
·
·
i'm pretty sure that's buged
Pedro A.
·
·
What I think is that clay is right when outputing the X Invalid or the valid emails. But the output is always the same. Valid as status and catch all as sub status
Pedro A.
·
·
but somehow, clay can verify that when it says valid email or not
Pedro A.
·
·
what I mean is this thing right here
Pedro A.
·
·
even tho the cells details are always the same
Pedro A.
·
·
Stefan K.
Stefan K.
·
·
mmm okay I missunderstood your issue here. Thanks for clarifying
Pedro A.
·
·
either way, I believe something is bugged.
Pedro A.
·
·
either clay cell details, or the info coming from zerobounce
Pedro A.
·
·
pls fix this asap, I'm sure is afecting other clients too
Clay Team
APP
·
·
I agree, this is really important. I confirmed with the team that an upcoming push will fix this, I just don't have a specific timeline at this moment.
Pedro A.
·
·
ok thanks. But will I have to modify anything in my fows? I hope not because I have a lot of them using this type of cascade Stefan K. Thanks!
Keethu R.
·
·
Hey Pedro A. - I put up a fix for the inconsistent results! However, the status vs sub-status matter you brought up was by design as we're standardizing the way our email validation providers work. Let me know if you have any questions - would be happy to hop on a huddle!
Pedro A.
·
·
I think you did not get my point. The matter here is not returning only safe emails. The matter is that the status is always valid and the sub status is always catch all. That was not happening before. For my flow, this new trigger will not work because If I don't have any valid email, I want to send the catch all email to verify in scrubby.io (A provider that is specific to verify catch alls). If I don't have the catch all, I can't send them to this flow. Once again, this was not hapening before has you can see by my first video Keethu R. Stefan K.
Pedro A.
·
·
Oh okay, I tried this with the new triggers, and seems it's working
Pedro A.
·
·
thanks for the fix!
Keethu R.
·
·
No problem and sorry should have specified that fixes sometimes take a couple of minutes to work as expected!
❤️2