Date   

moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:58 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
If I recall the ancient history correctly (and I may not), bouncing of bounce probes themselves did not used to be tracked/logged.
Based on my limited investigation, you're partially correct.  The bounces of the probes wasn't logged in the Activity Log, but was logged in the member's Email Delivery History as of July/August last year.

Duane


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 09:15 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Bounce Probes show up in the individual member's Email Delivery History.
Yes, and that's one more reason why you don't need or want further "is bouncing" entries in the group activity log. However, a group activity log entry to the effect that the member is actually bouncing the probes themselves (without having to look in their delivery history) would be very useful. I used to click "send bounce probe" every time I saw "is bouncing." Knowing specifically (and easily) that even the probes are bouncing would be useful.
 
--
J

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


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 05:13 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think as moderators we do want to know when a bounce probe itself has bounced, so that we can not send any more of them.
Bounce Probes show up in the individual member's Email Delivery History.

Chris


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

Mark,
Sorry for the dribble of thoughts. Things keep occurring to me, but I will stop after this. I think as moderators we do want to know when a bounce probe itself has bounced, so that we can not send any more of them. So perhaps a special log entry could be created called "bounced a bounce probe," or something to that effect, rather than the repeated "is bouncing" entry.
--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

John et al,

I'd already started a separate topic for the multiple "is bouncing" entries bug. I just posted an update in it, but I'll repeat quickly here and then move over there from now on: After an account is marked as Bouncing, the system stops sending group emails to it. The subsequent multiple "is bouncing" log entries I/we are seeing are due to bounce probes themselves bouncing. If I recall the ancient history correctly (and I may not), bouncing of bounce probes themselves did not used to be tracked/logged. And as long as they weren't, the "is bouncing" trigger did not have to be checked for subsequent messages, because there were none. But with the probes themselves being tracked by the bounce system, I think the trigger should be calmed to not activate for a bounce probe message.
--
J

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


moderated Re: Need for Better Quality Photo Viewing #done

epiplan
 

Charlie, this confirms my experiment above.

The question is, can anybody do anything about the 720x720 downsampling?

There must have been, originally, a reason to do this, I'd guess to do with bandwidth, but is that reason still valid with today's superfast optical broadband, 5G, unlimited data contracts and cheap data storage?

Peter


moderated Re: Need for Better Quality Photo Viewing #done

Charlie Behnken
 

Forgot about this with all the holiday stuff.  

I will make a simple statement that the same photos on Yahoo were displayed without any issues.  It is not the photos.    To be precise, I did not transfer photos from Yahoo.  I uploaded the same image files from my computer to Yahoo.

And as far as upsizing, I checked again, and  the image displayed when selected  does not fill up the entire screen leaving white space and part of the breadcrumb visible. The downloaded image (1280 x1278) when shown on my desktop is slightly larger filling the screen space top to bottom with no white space.  If I upload the photo at 720x719 size, the selected image is the same size as the 1280x1278, then the downloaded image is smaller.

Don't know if any of this helps, but the images on Groups.io are blurry, and there is nothing I can do about it.

Charlie


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

Mark,

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether the problem lies in the part of the code that handles bounces of bounce probes, rather than the part that handles bounces of group messages. In my example, the extra "is bouncing" log entries stemmed from bounces of bounce probes. IIRC (and I may not), tracking bouncing of bounce probes was a later add-on. Just a thought.
--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 04:55 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
in most if not cases recently examined the "554.30 account disabled" report is always accompanied by a total lack of "recent" activity, where there is no sign of any posts having been made in the last 5 years or even more
Exactly. It's been very useful in finding these cases.
And yes, as you say, the issue is the contiguous list of bounces, but not recorded as bounces: recorded (erroneously) as bounce-status changes.
 
--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

You also certainly do not want a log entry for every message a member bounces. That would be an unholy mess. The “is bouncing” should really only be logged when the account’s status changes to Bouncing. And that is the bug: instead, it is logged repeatedly.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 6:34 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

ps Rhe reason I say there has been no status change is that there are no intervening entires “x is no longer bouncing.” Granted thst in itself could be a logging bug (I.e., the account did unbound but was not logged), but it doesn’t appear to be.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 6:26 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

John,

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@...> wrote:

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.

J

--
J

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


--
J

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


--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

ps Rhe reason I say there has been no status change is that there are no intervening entires “x is no longer bouncing.” Granted thst in itself could be a logging bug (I.e., the account did unbound but was not logged), but it doesn’t appear to be.


On Feb 6, 2020, at 6:26 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

John,

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@...> wrote:

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.

J

--
J

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


--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

John,

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@...> wrote:

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.

J

--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:17 PM, John Pearce wrote:
I'm still not clear on the anomaly you are referring to
Unless I am much mistaken (always possible!) the anomaly is that while the individual member's Email Delivery History appears to be correct the group - wide Activity log can show a contiguous list of several bounces for the same member that cannot be correlated with message traffic within the group.

I haven't looked to see if this phenomenon is apparent on any member subscriptions that are set to Special Messages only or if it can also occur with those with less restricted settings.

If I get the chance I might try a further analysis later, but as I said previously my main references are the individual's Activity and Email Delivery logs; as it would be perfectly normal to have Special Notices only as a setting if the person concerned interacted with a group (or groups, plural) using the web UI. If I found a member with a serious bounce problem but with evidence of recent posting activity my initial instinct would be to leave the membership in place and try to investigate further.

That said in most if not cases recently examined the "554.30 account disabled" report is always accompanied by a total lack of "recent" activity, where there is no sign of any posts having been made in the last 5 years or even more.

Chris


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

John Pearce
 

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.

J


moderated Missing messages in search #update

 

Hi All,

A change I made to the search indexing system last Thursday in an attempt to speed things up had the unfortunate effect of causing some incoming messages to not be indexed. I don't know how many messages were omitted. I fixed the bug this morning. To fix search, I need to do a re-index.

I am in the middle of upgrading our search software, which will also require a re-index. I hope to complete the upgrade of the code in the next few days. So I'm going to hold off on the re-index (which will take ~12 hours) until we can use the new search software.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 02:30 PM, JediPirx wrote:
Why did GIO not flag these 10 users/email addresses last year ?
I do not know.
Because the conditions back then for setting a member to "bouncing" were not satisfied. You need either a hard bounce, or at least one soft bounce within every consecutive four consecutive days after the first soft bounce, plus at least four soft bounces total, for the member to be flagged as bouncing. Those are all 554.30 codes in what you posted, and they did not (until the recent bug fix) count as a hard bounce. So you needed other condition. Looking quickly through the dates in your example (and bear in mind I'm looking quickly), it does not seem that the bouncing dates conditions were satisfied.

If the above were to happen today, the member would be set to "bouncing" because 554 now qualifies as a hard bounce and you would not need all those date conditions.


 
--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

JediPirx
 

I would just like to squeeze in some more data to this topic to
show it is not just related to users with special-notice delivery,
as well as other observations.

For me, the bounce code seems to be working.

Stan/jp/elgio

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfer of my group from YG to GIO occurred on Thu 2019/11/14.

In 2019 there were 2 occurrences of multiple bounces : 14 Yahoo
email addresses on Fri 2019/11/15, and 118 Yahoo email addresses
on Wed 2019/11/20. Since then, quiet.

Looking at Admin-->Activity logs last week, 10 users started
bouncing as of Jan 30, 2020. These were triggered initially by
messages I posted followed by bounce probes.

Of the 10 users, 9 have email addresses on yahoo.com and 1 has an
email address on yahoo.co.uk. Basically, all Yahoo. Of the 10 users,
6 have Single-Delivery set, and 4 have Full-Digest-Delivery set.
The oldest account is from 2003-07-03 and the newest is from
2018-06-09

Then looking at the Email Delivery History for each user, multiple
entries were seen dating back to Sat 2019-11-16, just 2 days after
my group arrived in GIO. Here is the Email Delivery History for
one such user, the remaining users are the same.

Why did GIO not flag these 10 users/email addresses last year ?
I do not know. The accounts were already disabled by Yahoo in
2019.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

05:17 Bounce probe mta7.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4032.mail.ne1.yahoo.com

Jan 31 Digest #9 mta6.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4308.mail.bf1.yahoo.com

Jan 23 Digest #8 mta5.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4393.mail.ne1.yahoo.com

Jan 21 Digest #7 mta6.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4390.mail.bf1.yahoo.com

Jan 1 Digest #6 mta7.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4222.mail.gq1.yahoo.com

2019-12-28 Digest #5 mta6.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4356.mail.gq1.yahoo.com

2019-12-09 Digest #4 mta5.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4223.mail.ne1.yahoo.com

2019-11-20 Digest #3 mta5.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4312.mail.bf1.yahoo.com

2019-11-19 Digest #2 mta5.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4222.mail.bf1.yahoo.com

2019-11-16 Digest #1 mta6.am0.yahoodns.net: 554 delivery error:
dd Sorry, your message to <...>@yahoo.com cannot be delivered.
This mailbox is disabled (554.30). - mta4078.mail.bf1.yahoo.com


moderated Re: Need for Better Quality Photo Viewing #done

epiplan
 

I'm here a bit late but have the same problem and was referred here by GMF.

Brief description: I have resizing turned OFF for now, and did my own resizing, long side = 2500 pixels before upload to Photos folder.

As has been described above, viewing a photo in individual view, image is pretty severely degraded. Clicking the Download button, the download image is exactly as it was uploaded, all the detail is there. I did

In view of the 720x720 discussion, I took my original image and downsampled it to long side=720. I then took small screenshots of the same part of the image; these were from (a) the Download screen, (b) the individual photo view screen and (c) the 720x720 pixel downsample on my local computer.

Comparing (b) and (c), the degraded individual image view has indeed been downsampled to 720x720, shown both by the overall similarly degraded appearance of each, but also counting and comparing the pixellated steps in each, which is pretty clear when looking at corresponding parts of the spectacle frames. Exactly the same number of pixel steps in each. Therefore, pretty certainly 720x720 or close to it.

I show the clips below:

(a) the Download screen at full resolution




(b) the individual photo view screen




(c) the 720x720 pixel downsample on my local computer



Well, that's what I have, what to do now?

Peter


moderated group-activity "is bouncing" vs. "bounced" log entries don't match search criterion "bounced" #bug

 

This is a more accurate rewrite, this time as a bug, of a #suggestion I just wrote about bouncing/bounced log entry mismatches. Here are the actual problems. (I will either delete the previous suggestion or Mark can do that.)

When a member starts bouncing, a group activity log entry is created called "is bouncing." But in the search dropdown of the log, there is only a term "bounced" (no "bouncing") and the term "bounced" returns both. Making matters more confusing, "bounced" activities are not so marked in the group activity log -  when the system internally marks the member as bounced (and adds a red "B"), the log entry created is still "is bouncing."

These mismatches/conflations make it impossible to either use search terms or to search by hand through the group activity log with the goal of distinguishing these two different actions. 
--
J

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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 08:58 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
I think I have seen these anomalous Activity log entries prior to the recent bugfix.
Exactly right. The bug (of multiple "is bouncing" log entries) pre-existed, but I only see it manifested now because of the fact that this special-notice member was finally noted as bouncing because of the 554 finally categorized as a hard bounce. 
 
--
J

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