toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree with you on the general principle of the log entry. But I think the problem is with the language of the entry. “X is bouncing” implies a change in status when there has been no change. So I find it extremely misleading.
The solution is either to ditch the log entry once the account has already been marked as bouncing, or change subsequent entries after the actual status change to indicate that the account has just bounced another messsge. But because if the complications with and definitions of the Bouncing status, I would favor simply not logging subsequent bounces. I think it could be tricky.
On Feb 6, 2020, at 4:17 AM, John Pearce <jponsalt@...
It is great that this has been set for a hard bounce. I hate going through the group one by one to inspect the mail history. I have to be honest, I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to. Probably because I see only what appears to be logical to me. One bounce, one user mail history activity log entry, and one group activity log entry. Per bounce and continues to log them each bounce, even when a person is already marked as B and the following bounces continue to log either from a bounce probe or maybe a new message from the group. This seems logical to me that both logs contain an entry. Updating the user mail history without a log entry once a person is already a B seems to unnecessarily complicate the code required from Mark. And some people would think, hey, there's something wrong here, there's no entry in the group activity log! Depends on how your mind works. As a life long operating systems programmer on large scale IBM computers (since the 70's) I hate to see things complicated for very thin reasons even though they are valid.
Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu