I have forms on my in-development website which require the person to enter an e-mail address.

I don't want to have to send them a "verification" e-mail with a URL containing a code, or instructions such as "please reply to this e-mail to verify that you sent it". This is extremely likely to cause problems such as them not receiving it, or not seeing it, or forgetting about it, or don't want to click on URLs for whatever reason. I know that it's "best practice" according to numerous online guides for e-mail, but in reality, it's a major chore for everyone involved.

And having a text such as:

If you wish, you can click this link to verify that you sent this: blablabla

feels pointless since most will not bother unless they have to.

If somebody enters a nasty message into the form and states their enemy's e-mail address, my system will therefore assume that the person owning that e-mail address submitted the form, and perhaps I will add him to my "blackhole list" without considering that it may not be them. And then, when they later actually want to use the service, they can't, because I added them to my list of e-mail addresses to silently ignore, because some entirely different person "framed" them.

Maybe this doesn't happen often in practice, but I've had it happen to me personally, so I know that it does happen, at least sometimes. I've received angry e-mails from people replying to me after somebody wrote something mean and used my e-mail address.

  • 13
    It is called a double opt-in and you leave the step out at your peril. The easiest way to handle it is to send the verification message. If the person doesn't respond within a period (7 days?) then delete their details. Don't blacklist or anything, just delete it. Then if the real owner ever decides to join, they can. Simple.
    – Steve
    Commented Jan 16, 2021 at 11:34
  • 17
    Not really worth an answer, but if you're not going to verify the e-mail address, consider what value collecting it is giving you. Either don't collect it at all, or make the whole field optional (but verification mandatory if an address is provided.)
    – IMSoP
    Commented Jan 16, 2021 at 18:13
  • 9
    Either you do need the user's email for something, in which case you need to verify it, or you don't need it, in which case your form should not require it. I don't see any middle ground.
    – Bergi
    Commented Jan 16, 2021 at 20:39
  • 7
    If you don't require verification then please at least minimally provide a link in the emails sent for the recipient to disavow the account. I have quite a common name and get a ton of mail to my gmail account from people signing up to services and entering my email address incorrectly. It's annoying how few companies address this possibility Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 2:31
  • 7
    " This is extremely likely to cause problems such as them not receiving it, or not seeing it, or forgetting about it, or don't want to click on URLs for whatever reason." What's the point in having their email address at all, if you don't trust that they're going to receive/read your emails? Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 22:45

2 Answers 2


At its root, this is a problem about verifying ownership of an email address, and as far as I know there are only two ways to practically verify ownership of an email address:

  1. Send a verification email, as you mentioned.

  2. Complete an authentication flow with the email provider, OAuth-style.

Option 2 works great if your user has an email provider that supports 3rd-party auth, such as Gmail/Google. But the only solution guaranteed compatible with most email providers is 1.

In essence, the answer to your question:

How should I handle the problem of people entering others' e-mail addresses without annoying them with “verification” e-mails?

Is that it is impossible in such a way that is fully compatible across all email providers. There is no practical way to verify that someone owns a specific email address besides sending a verification email.

  • 9
    ... which is, of course, why everybody sends verification emails. Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 22:47
  • Note that OAuth can also be used to indirectly verify e-mail addresses from third-party e-mail providers, if the OAuth provider has already previously verified the address e.g. using a verification e-mail. For example, for various reasons, I have three separate Google accounts, but only one of those is linked to a Gmail address. (Another one is my work account, linked to my work address on my employee's domain, while my main account is linked to an address on a domain I personally own, handled by my web hosting provider.) Commented Jan 18, 2021 at 18:47
  • 1
    I take annoying popups with a remind-me-later option and put the host's email into "remind me later". If they use verification, it doesn't matter. I've still communicated with the host's operator that his ways are annoying.
    – Joshua
    Commented Jan 18, 2021 at 20:27

There is not much you can do to avoid verification mails (in case you actually need to store and verify mails at all, of course): if you display it to users or sent mails to that address, you better make sure the owner has consented.

Besides verifying the email, it also somewhat is used to verify idendity (when more intrusive methods like Government eID, postal challenge, video proof or SMS are not acceptable).

Like mentioned in other answers (and For a particular nerdy audience) you can use OIC/OAUTH or similar social login providers - login with Facebook, GitHub, Google, Live.com, or Apple ID... This has the advantage that it usually also gives you a verified email address.

However, if you need to stick to the ubiquitous email, when you verify them, at least make sure to minimize the annoyance and compliance risks:

  • rate limit the mails by receiver and web client ip
  • optionally lower the chances for automated submissions with captchas (maybe coupled to „this ip range tried more than one access per hour“)
  • make sure to make the verification mails short and unobtrusive, especially refrain from any advertising or passing along user controlled text (there are some google form invitations which sent you the survey title as spam)
  • make sure the verification emails correctly identify your business (reason: besides the general courtesy to identify your business it is also a good idea to not send messages which allow „annoyed“ receivers to sue you on the grounds of formalities like missing business identification and tax number) and have a contact information for a human responder (so they can ask you if harassed via your service)
  • make it clear that it is safe to ignored the challenge, but also provide a opt-out link so people can block their Email from beeing challenged (for 6 month or so)
  • deny link in the email is actually safer than accepting a „deny me“ form on your web site since only the (annoyed) recipient can use it
  • this is also EU GDPR relevant, so make sure to log all transactions around opt-in for proofing due diligence (and make sure to expire those records and not keep the ip addresses indefinite)
  • you might want to maintain a deny list for high profile addresses and domains like whitehouse.gov (but this is a losing battle)

BTW some of those points are especially relevant for markets like Germany and EU where lots of legal battles happening around spam, unsolicited mails, data protection and business formalities. You did not specify which area you target, but in a global village it is not a bad idea to target the strictest regulatory framework.

  • 1
    Most of this answer is inalplicable to the request.
    – davidgo
    Commented Jan 16, 2021 at 23:48
  • 1
    @davidgo I disagree, but I reworded the intro anyway
    – eckes
    Commented Jan 16, 2021 at 23:50
  • 4 of your bullet points refer to handling the opt-in mail the user explicitly does not want to send...
    – davidgo
    Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 0:40
  • 1
    I agree with eckes. "I don't want opt-in emails" should be answered with "you need them, here is why they are a good idea." Commented Jan 17, 2021 at 10:14
  • @IMSoP fixed it, was writing a process description about data protection officers before writing the answer, so the O stuck in my fingers
    – eckes
    Commented Jan 19, 2021 at 22:12

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.