Is it better to use a Work Email Validation Provider (like ZeroBounce or NeverBounce) when finding work emails in the Waterfall? Or do your trust LeadMagic, FindyMail & those providers in the Waterfall? Had situations when the providers (LeadMagic, Findymail & others) found a valid email, but then it was disapproved from ZeroBounce... and it might have been good as most of those providers have built in verification mechanisms.. Plus saw that several emails approved by ZeroBounce still bounced after
Our email waterfall includes built-in validation using ZeroBounce by default, which is a best-in-class validation service. The waterfall both finds emails AND validates them in one process. Email providers like LeadMagic and FindyMail do have built-in verification mechanisms, but our system adds an additional validation layer through ZeroBounce for higher accuracy. You can choose a different validation provider if you prefer, but ZeroBounce is optimized for high accuracy. Key setting: By default, catch-all emails are marked as valid. Enable "Only mark 'Safe to Send' emails as valid" to exclude catch-all emails for more conservative validation. No validation is 100% perfect - even ZeroBounce-approved emails can sometimes bounce due to various factors beyond validation scope.
That's great! You can absolutely use Findymail for email validation in your waterfall. Our system gives you the flexibility to choose a different validation provider if you prefer - you're not locked into ZeroBounce. Findymail has its own email validation action available in Clay, so you can leverage their verification service directly within your workflows. Since you trust their validation accuracy, you can configure your waterfall to use Findymail instead of the default ZeroBounce validation.
Daniel Grinshpun Zerobounce/Neverbounce do not validate catch-all emails, which is why they can reject some emails that Findymail was able to validate (as Findymail can validate catch-all). You can simply swap the validation provider in the waterfall to Findymail to get better validation coverage (in the dropdown you highlighted) When Zerobounce/Neverbounce reject such an email, if you look at the detail it's not a "reject because invalid" but a "reject because we don't know if it's valid or not", which is not the same
Exactly right! You can swap the validation provider in your waterfall from ZeroBounce to Findymail for better catch-all email coverage. Our system gives you flexibility to choose different validation providers - just select Findymail from the dropdown instead of the default ZeroBounce. Findymail has its own email validation action available in Clay, so you can leverage their verification service directly. This addresses the exact issue you mentioned where ZeroBounce/NeverBounce mark catch-all emails as "unknown" rather than invalid, while Findymail can actually validate them.
Sources: Enrich People (Waterfalls) [CRM Enrichment] - Clay University Enrich People (Waterfalls) [Automated Inbound] - Clay University Enrich People (Waterfalls) [Automated Outbound] - Clay University Enrich People (Waterfalls) [CRM Enrichment] - Clay University Enrich People (Waterfalls) [Clay 101] - Clay University Enrich People (Waterfalls) [Clay 101] - Clay University Findymail integration overview | Documentation | Clay University Findymail integration overview | Documentation | Clay University
Noted, thanks