In most cases, when you are objectionably forced to supply an email address, the solution is to walk and take your business elsewhere. But what about the cases where you are trapped because you are forced (e.g. by law) into an interaction that demands an email address?

We need a fix. One idea is to designate a few universally shared email addresses for everyone to use:

1. something like nobodyhome@righttobeanalog.org, which simply rejects all connections. The rejection message from the mail server would be a lengthy canned response that mansplains to the sender: “You unreasonably demanded an email address from someone who objects under GDPR Art.18 to that kind of processing. Please note we kept a copy of your attempt and will serve as witness to the data subject’s express Art.18-protected objection.” (edit: would also be useful to detect the sending server’s ownership, and if MS or Google add an extra blurb about objections to surveillance advertising)
2. something like blindverify@digitalrights.org, which accepts the message just to the extent necessary to see the body of the message and visit all the URLs therein, in case someone is filling out a required field on a form that will lead to a confirmation procedure. Then after visiting the links it perhaps does a rejection comparable to message too large refusals, ideally in a way that avoids backscatter if possible. Maybe withhold the final ACK after the last packet is read.
3. blindverify-blackhole@righttobeoffline.org: same as blindverify but instead of signalling an error it accepts delivery, followed by an auto-response (comparable to a vacation responder) telling the sender that the msg was blackholed.

Of course whatever address gets designated will end up on lists and will be specifically refused by some forced-email pushers, but we could do the cat and mouse game with dynamic addressing a bit and in the very least have a solution that at least works for the less forceful less motivated forced email pushers.

Other solutions?

(update)
4. (Spamgourmet tweak) SG gives us a way to forward just the first X msgs and blackhole the rest. It would be useful to forward only the 1st msg (for verfiication) but instead of blackholing the subsequent messages, refuse them.

Snags identified with blind-verify approaches:

1. The verification URL could lead to further interaction beyond simply visiting the link, which would leave the procedure incomplete.
2. The verification email could have contradictory links; e.g. “click here to verify” and “click here to delete your account”, which would create a possible race condition and unexpected results.