In a perfect world, anyone reaching out with legitimate business intentions would make it easy to confirm who they are. Yet today, inboxes and voicemail boxes are filled with unexpected messages from people claiming to represent opportunities, partnerships, or solutions. Some are real. Most are not. The modern challenge is learning how to recognize the difference before making the mistake of responding.

A practical starting point is to treat any unexpected communication as unverified until proven otherwise. That doesn’t require ignoring everything. It simply means taking a moment to read or listen before committing to any action. The content itself may be harmless, but acting on it without verification can create unnecessary risk.

Verification begins by looking for evidence that the person or organization exists beyond a single message. Real professionals usually leave visible footprints: a legitimate website, a staff listing, a conference presentation, a published article, or activity on a well-known professional platform. When a supposed representative has no presence outside the message received, that absence becomes meaningful.

Checking the organization’s website can uncover more clues. Many impersonators rely on recently registered or imitation domains that resemble real companies. A long-established business almost never operates from a domain that appeared only days or weeks earlier. A company’s age, ownership information, and site content can reveal whether the contact is connected to a genuine entity or something hastily assembled.

How a message is written also matters. Established organizations tend to communicate in consistent ways — from tone and formatting to how names, titles, and contact details are presented. Messages that feel unusual or inconsistent with a legitimate organization’s style often signal that the sender is not who they claim to be.

When uncertainty remains, a simple test is to ask the sender to verify their identity through a method that is difficult to fake. For example, scheduling a meeting using a recognized corporate calendar system can confirm whether the sender is connected to a real business account. Impersonators frequently cannot produce a legitimate scheduling request because they lack access to the actual systems.

Another effective step is to move the conversation to a different platform. If the first message arrives by email, asking the sender to follow up through a well-known professional network adds a layer of accountability. Individuals acting in good faith can switch channels easily. Those operating under false pretenses generally avoid environments where identity is harder to fabricate.

When someone claims to represent a particular company, contacting that organization through its official publicly listed phone number is one of the most reliable ways to verify authenticity. Many people discover that the person who contacted them — and the number they left — has no connection to the organization at all.

Official business registries can also help confirm whether a company exists, how long it has operated, and who is responsible for it. Genuine businesses appear in these records. Fabricated ones do not.

Even small details can reveal whether a contact is real. Profile photos that appear across multiple unrelated websites often indicate a stolen or stock image. Phone numbers that show no traceable presence — or appear only in scam warnings — are worth treating with caution. Messages that offer no context, shared connection, or clear purpose are common signs of opportunistic outreach rather than legitimate professional interest.

Urgency is another red flag. When a message insists on immediate action, that pressure often reflects the sender’s intentions more than the importance of the opportunity. Authentic communication almost never demands instant decisions from people they have never met.

Ultimately, the safest approach is to confirm the identity of any unexpected sender through more than one independent channel. Read the email, but verify through the official website. Consider the voicemail, but call the organization using the number listed publicly rather than the one provided. Trust is built not from a single piece of communication but from consistency across multiple sources.

Most unsolicited business contacts turn out to be noise, automation, or outright fraud. When a sender cannot be verified after reasonable attempts, it is appropriate — and often necessary — to block the source and move on. Real professionals leave a clear, discoverable pattern. False ones leave confusion, inconsistencies, or nothing at all.

— Kevin

---

References

Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. Recognize, report, and stop fraud in Canada. Government of Canada.
https://antifraudcentre-centreantifraude.ca/index-eng.htm

Communications Security Establishment Canada. Don’t take the bait: Recognize and avoid phishing attacks. Government of Canada.
https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/dont-take-bait-recognize-and-avoid-phishing-attacks

Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Scams. U.S. Government Consumer Protection.
https://consumer.ftc.gov/scams

Microsoft Security Intelligence. Security Blog – Threat Research, Guidance, and Intelligence.
https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog

Google Security Blog. Protecting users from phishing and account hijacking.
https://security.googleblog.com

Europol – European Cybercrime Centre (EC3). Cybercrime.
https://www.europol.europa.eu/about-europol/european-cybercrime-centre-ec3

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Digital Identity Guidelines (Special Publication 800-63).
https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3