EmailCheck / Questions问题页 / Why does my email verifier charge full price for “unknown” and catch-all results?
Why does my email verifier charge full price for “unknown” and catch-all results?为什么我的邮箱验证工具对「unknown」和 catch-all 结果也要全额收费？
Because most verifiers bill per submitted address, not per answered question. An “unknown” or catch-all result still cost them a lookup, so it costs you a full credit — even though you learned nothing decisive. When choosing a tool, check two things before paying: whether its policy on unknown/catch-all results is stated up front, and whether you at least get a graded risk signal instead of a shrug.
因为多数验证工具按「提交的地址数」计费，不按「回答了的问题数」计费。「unknown」或 catch-all 结果对它来说也做了一次查询，所以照样扣你一整个额度——哪怕你什么决定性的信息都没得到。选型时先看两样：它对 unknown/catch-all 的口径有没有事先写明；以及测不准时，你至少能不能拿到一个分级风险信号，而不是一个耸肩标签。
The complaint, in users' own words用户原话里的抱怨
This is the single loudest pricing complaint in the category. In our competitor review research (aggregating 1,404 G2 reviews of ZeroBounce, the category's best-known vendor), price was mentioned 159 times, and a recurring cluster is paying in full for results that are not answers: users report that “a huge chunk of our contacts came back as catch all”, and that “catch-all emails cost 2 credits” — full price, sometimes double, for an address the tool could not resolve.
The frustration is rational. A result that says “unknown” has near-zero decision value: you still don't know whether to mail the address. Billing it like a verdict makes the effective price per usable answer much higher than the headline rate.
这是这个品类里最响的一条价格抱怨。在我们的竞品差评调研里（聚合品类最知名厂商 ZeroBounce 在 G2 上的 1,404 条评论），「价格贵」被提及 159 次，其中反复出现的一簇是为非答案全额付费：用户说「我们一大块联系人查回来都是 catch all」，还有人说「catch-all 邮箱要扣 2 个额度」——测不准的地址，全价、甚至双倍。
这种不满是合理的。一个写着「unknown」的结果，决策价值接近于零：你还是不知道该不该给这个地址发信。把它按裁决收费，等于把「每个可用答案」的实际价格抬得比标价高得多。
Why it happens为什么会这样
Three mechanics stack up. First, the billing unit is the submission: the meter starts when your address arrives, whatever comes back. Second, catch-all domains genuinely cannot be resolved further without sending mail — the “unknown” is honest, but it is still metered. Third, on some plans an unresolved result consumes more than one credit, which users only discover on the invoice.
None of that is a reason to accept it silently. The question to ask a vendor is not “why do you charge?” but “what do I get back for an unresolved address, and is that written down before I pay?”
三层机制叠在一起。第一，计费单位是「提交」：地址一到就开始计米，回来什么都一样。第二，catch-all 域名不真发信确实无从再确认——「unknown」本身诚实，但照样计费。第三，有些套餐里一个未决结果会扣不止一个额度，用户往往是在账单上才发现。
这些都不是默默接受的理由。要问厂商的不是「你为什么收费」，而是「测不准的地址我能拿回什么、这话在付费前有没有写下来」。
What EmailCheck returns insteadEmailCheck 给的是什么
EmailCheck also charges per call — that part is the same. What differs is what an unresolved address returns: a graded catchAllRisk signal (low / possible / unknown, inferred from MX and provider patterns and labelled as a signal, not a probed conclusion), plus the rest of the domain evidence — MX presence, domain age, disposable and typo flags — so the result is still usable for segmentation. Try the box on this page with anyone@github.com: the live API returns catch-all risk “possible” for that domain, alongside a full score breakdown.
EmailCheck 也是按次收费——这一点相同。不同在测不准时返回什么：一个分级的 catchAllRisk 信号（low / possible / unknown，由 MX 与服务商模式推断，并明说这是信号、不是探测结论），外加其余域名证据——有无 MX、域名年龄、一次性与拼写标记——让结果仍然能用来分仓。用本页的框试 anyone@github.com：生产 API 对这个域名返回的 catch-all 风险是「possible」，并附完整的分数拆解。
Try it on a real address拿真实地址试一下
Live call to the production API — the same check described on this page.
实时调生产 API——就是本页说的这个检查。
Scope, stated plainly: EmailCheck checks domains, not mailboxes — no SMTP probing, no claim that a specific mailbox exists. Every API response carries scope: "domain-level" and a note saying exactly what was checked.
范围说死：EmailCheck 查的是域名，不是邮箱——不做 SMTP 探测，不声称某个具体邮箱存在。每个 API 响应都带 scope: "domain-level" 和一段说明，把查过的范围写清。