Answer 'who are you and how did you get my email?' without panicking
Defuses the trust challenge that most reps fumble into a spam complaint. The reply answers the literal question honestly, shows the specific reason they were researched, restates the value in one plain sentence, and offers a genuine opt-out — the combination that converts challengers into conversations while protecting your domain reputation.
You are a cold outbound compliance and trust specialist. You know 'who are you / how did you get my email?' is a fork in the road: answered defensively or evasively, it becomes a spam complaint that damages the sending domain; answered with calm transparency, it regularly turns into the most honest conversation in the pipeline — because the prospect is actually engaging. Draft ONE email reply to this challenge. Rules: - Under 90 words. - Answer the literal question first and truthfully: name the actual source (a data provider like Apollo or Clay, their public LinkedIn, their company site) in plain language, no hedging. - One sentence on why THEY specifically were worth researching — the trigger or fit signal, not 'you seemed like a good fit'. - One sentence re-stating the value hypothesis, shorter and plainer than the original email. - End with an easy out: an explicit offer to remove them and never email again if this isn't relevant. The easy out is what defuses the anger and, paradoxically, keeps conversations alive. - Banned: 'I apologize for the intrusion', legal-sounding language, pretending it wasn't a cold email, and any pushiness whatsoever. Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time: 1. Where did this contact's email actually come from (be honest — provider, scrape, referral, event list)? 2. Paste the original email and their exact reply, so I can read their temperature. 3. What was the genuine reason you targeted this person — the trigger, tech signal, or fit criteria? 4. What do you sell, in one sentence? Once you have my answers, write the reply. If their reply reads angry rather than curious, tell me — an angry version needs the removal offer moved to the first line, and I'll adjust the draft accordingly.
How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Answer the interview truthfully, especially question 1 — the model can only write a credible answer if it knows the real source.
- 3
Check the model's read on their temperature; send the curious-version or angry-version accordingly.
- 4
If they take the opt-out, honor it the same day across every sequence and every teammate's list — suppression discipline is domain protection.
Best practices
Naming your data source plainly ('your email is listed on Apollo, pulled from public records') reads as more trustworthy than vague 'through my research'.
The fit-reason sentence is your redemption shot — if you can't articulate why this specific person was targeted, your list criteria need work, not your reply.
Never argue about the legality of cold email in the reply, even if you're right — it converts a curious challenger into a hostile one.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A founder doing his own outbound for a dev-tools startup gets 'Who is this? How did you get this address?' from a platform engineering lead. He admits in the interview the email came from Apollo, and the targeting reason was the prospect's company posting three SRE roles in a month. The model drafts an 87-word reply naming Apollo plainly, noting the SRE hiring spree as the reason for the outreach, restating the pitch in one sentence about cutting on-call noise, and offering immediate removal. The reply back: 'Fair enough, appreciate the straight answer. What does it actually do?' The thread becomes a technical conversation, then a pilot.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
Tell the truth, plainly. 'Your email is publicly listed and I found it through a B2B data provider' is a complete, credible answer — evasion is what escalates these threads. Follow it with the specific reason you researched them and an explicit offer to remove them. Honesty plus an easy exit defuses nearly all of these, and a surprising share turn into real conversations.
More reply & objection handling prompts
Convert a positive reply into a booked meeting before it cools off
Closes the gap where outbound pipelines leak most — between 'interested' and 'booked'. The reply answers their question in one line, offers two concrete times plus a link, and names the meeting payoff, all under 70 words. The pre-written 48-hour bump catches the prospects who meant yes but got busy, which is most of them.
Handle 'we already have a vendor' without trashing the competitor
Turns the most common outbound objection into a wedge conversation. Instead of attacking the incumbent or retreating, the reply legitimizes the prospect's choice and probes one specific gap as a question — the only competitive angle that doesn't insult their judgment. The interview forces you to name a provable differentiator, and the model pushes back if it's generic.
Answer 'can you guarantee results?' without overpromising or dodging
Answers the guarantee question the way buyers actually mean it — proof, downside protection, and shared risk — without the overpromise that becomes churn or the dodge that reads as no confidence. If your interview answers reveal you have no real risk-reversal structure, the model says so and proposes guarantee structures instead of writing copy that papers over the gap.