Thanks for the sanity check. I remember someone having requested that they be tracked, and tracking bouncing of the probes could indeed be very useful (as I just wrote in the separate thread about

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

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

Bounce Probes show up in the individual member's Email Delivery History. Chris

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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