Summary
Validating email addresses based on open activity from other senders is a complex and largely unfeasible request due to pervasive data privacy regulations and the architectural design of email systems. While the idea is appealing for highly targeted reactivation campaigns, the mechanisms required for such cross-sender data sharing do not widely exist or are severely restricted.
Key findings
- Privacy limitations: Email receivers, such as internet service providers (ISPs) and mailbox providers, do not share user activity data, like email opens and clicks, across different senders or external entities due to privacy concerns and regulations like GDPR or CCPA. This practice would be considered highly intrusive.
- Technical impossibility: Email validation services primarily focus on checking the syntax, domain validity, and mail server responsiveness of an email address (e.g., via SMTP checks). They do not, and cannot, access historical engagement data from disparate sending entities.
- Data cooperatives (limited): Very few, highly specialized data cooperatives might exist where participating senders agree to pool anonymized data on engagement for shared insights. However, these are rare, typically closed, and offer aggregated data rather than specific open activity per email address for third-party validation.
- First-party data importance: The most reliable way to validate email activity is through your own historical engagement data (first-party data). If you have sent to these addresses before, you should analyze your own open and click metrics for reactivation purposes. This aligns with modern data protection principles focusing on zero and first-party data strategies.
Key considerations
- Reactivation strategies: For targeted reactivation, focus on segments of your list that have shown recent engagement with your own emails, rather than seeking external validation based on other senders' activity.
- Email list hygiene: Implement robust email validation practices at the point of collection and regularly clean your lists to remove invalid or risky addresses. This prevents bounces and spam trap hits, which are far more impactful on deliverability than a lack of engagement data from other senders.
- Deliverability impact: Focus on improving your own sender reputation by sending relevant content to engaged subscribers, managing unsubscribes, and maintaining low complaint rates. These factors are directly controllable and highly influence your inbox placement.
- Ethical considerations: Even if technically possible, the sharing of individual open activity across unrelated entities raises significant ethical questions regarding user privacy and consent.
What email marketers say
Email marketers widely acknowledge the limitations of validating email addresses based on open activity from other senders. The primary consensus is that such a service is either impossible due to privacy restrictions or offers extremely limited coverage. Marketers typically rely on their own historical engagement data and traditional email validation methods to maintain list health and target reactivation campaigns.
Key opinions
- Unrealistic expectation: Many marketers view the request for cross-sender open activity validation as unrealistic, given the current landscape of email and data privacy.
- Privacy over data sharing: The general sentiment among marketers aligns with the understanding that privacy safeguards prevent email providers from sharing user engagement data between different companies.
- Focus on owned data: Marketers prefer to utilize their own engagement metrics for list segmentation and targeting inactive subscribers.
- Limited third-party capabilities: Existing email validation services are effective for syntax and deliverability checks, but do not provide insights into open activity from other senders. They assist in general email list hygiene.
Key considerations
- Risk of blacklists: Sending to unengaged or old contacts without proper validation risks landing on an email blacklist, also known as a blocklist, which can severely impact deliverability.
- Ethical marketing: Marketers are increasingly aware of the ethical implications of data usage and prioritize obtaining consent directly from subscribers (first-party data) rather than relying on inferred activity from third parties.
- Alternative reactivation metrics: Instead of external open data, marketers can use metrics like recent purchase history, website visits, or other interactions to identify high-value segments for reactivation.
- Regional data coverage: Even for standard email validation, coverage can vary by region. Services might have better data in the US market compared to, for instance, UK or Australian markets, as noted by some marketers.
Marketer view
Email marketer from Email Geeks suggests that the kind of service clients are asking for, which involves validating emails based on open activity from other senders, likely does not exist. They express general skepticism about the feasibility of such a request.
Marketer view
Email marketer from a Deliverability Forum notes that achieving significant data coverage for email validation, especially concerning open activity, varies greatly by region. While some markets might have decent coverage, it is often nowhere near the level seen in the US market for standard validation.
What the experts say
Email deliverability experts are in strong agreement that validating email addresses based on open activity from other senders is generally not possible. Their arguments center on fundamental privacy principles, the technical architecture of email, and the ethical implications of such data sharing. While a rare 'co-op' model might exist, it is an exception, not a standard validation practice.
Key opinions
- Fundamentally impossible: Most experts state definitively that email receivers simply do not share individual user statistics, making cross-sender open activity validation impossible.
- Privacy safeguards: Experts emphasize that existing privacy safeguards and regulations are specifically designed to prevent the intrusive sharing of personal engagement data across unrelated companies.
- Limited exceptions (co-ops): A very specific and limited exception could be data cooperatives, where entities voluntarily contribute their lists and receive aggregated insights. However, this is distinct from a general validation service providing individual open data.
- Intrusive nature: The very concept of Company B knowing an individual's open activity with Company A's newsletter is deemed highly intrusive and against current data privacy norms.
Key considerations
- Ethical data handling: Even if technically possible through advanced fingerprinting, such data sharing would contravene ethical principles of consent and data protection.
- Focus on deliverability fundamentals: Experts advise focusing on core deliverability practices, such as proper authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), maintaining a clean list, and sending relevant content to engaged subscribers, as these are the true drivers of inbox placement.
- Reliable validation: For genuine email validation, tools should verify syntax, domain existence, and mailbox validity. Any service claiming cross-sender open activity should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Traditional SMTP-based validation remains the standard.
- User control: Users themselves opt into data sharing within specific platforms (like Slack displaying online status), which is fundamentally different from a third party sharing their email open behavior without direct consent.
Expert view
Email deliverability expert from Email Geeks states unequivocally that validating email addresses based on open activity from other senders is impossible. They underline that email receivers do not share user statistics due to a multitude of reasons, primarily privacy.
Expert view
Deliverability expert from Word to the Wise explains that the idea of broad, shared open activity data is fundamentally at odds with privacy principles and the way email is designed. They emphasize that such intrusive data sharing is precisely what data protection laws aim to prevent.
What the documentation says
Official email and data privacy documentation universally supports the principle that user engagement data, such as email opens, is considered private and not to be shared across disparate entities without explicit consent. Standard email validation methods are defined by technical specifications and do not include behavioral tracking from other senders.
Key findings
- RFC compliance: Email validation, as defined by RFCs (Request for Comments) like RFC 5321 (SMTP) and RFC 5322 (Internet Message Format), pertains to the structural and deliverability aspects of an email address, not its behavioral history across third parties.
- Data protection laws: Major data protection frameworks (e.g., GDPR, CCPA) strictly regulate the collection, processing, and sharing of personal data, including email engagement. Sharing open activity without explicit consent from the user and a legitimate basis would be a direct violation.
- Mailbox provider policies: ISPs and mailbox providers like Gmail and Outlook prioritize user privacy. Their postmaster tools and policies provide senders with aggregated data about their *own* sending reputation, but never individual user engagement with emails from *other* senders.
- Definition of email validation: Email validation is primarily defined as checking an email address for proper formatting, domain existence, and mailbox deliverability. It does not encompass behavioral tracking.
Key considerations
- Consent models: Documentation emphasizes the move towards explicit consent (opt-in) for data collection and usage, particularly for marketing. Implied consent through third-party data aggregation is not permissible for sensitive behavioral data.
- Data minimization: Legal frameworks encourage data minimization, meaning only data necessary for a specific purpose should be collected. Cross-sender open activity for validation would likely be deemed excessive and unnecessary.
- Security implications: Sharing detailed user engagement data across platforms could inadvertently create security vulnerabilities or be exploited for malicious purposes, underscoring why providers maintain strict data silos.
- Accountability: Organizations are held accountable for the data they process. Relying on unverified or ethically questionable data sources could lead to significant legal and reputational damage.
Technical article
The RFC 5321 (SMTP) documentation, which defines the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, outlines the technical process for email delivery. It specifies how mail servers communicate to send messages but contains no provisions or mechanisms for sharing user engagement data, such as opens or clicks, between different email systems or third parties.
Technical article
The GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) documentation explicitly defines personal data broadly, including online identifiers and behavioral data. It mandates that processing such data requires a lawful basis, typically consent, and that data subjects have rights over their information, making cross-sender open activity sharing without consent illegal.
Related resources
8 resources
Related pages
What are the best email address validation workflows and tools?
How do Internet Service Providers track email engagement and its impact on deliverability?
Are pristine spam traps real and do email validation services improve deliverability?
How to identify and prevent fake or generated email addresses?
Do inbox providers share email deliverability data with each other?
Is it a good idea to verify email addresses by connecting to servers?
What are the best practices for email address validation and avoiding spam traps?
How can I safely message inactive email addresses without damaging my sender reputation?
Spam traps: what they are and how they work
Why your emails are going to spam in 2024 and how to fix it
