Topics

moderated 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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 09:34 AM, Duane wrote:
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.
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 this specific situation, separate from 554). I think the Activity Log tracker did not, before that change, have to worry about being triggered for further bounces until the probes themselves started being tracked, because there were no furhter bounces *of group messages* (since none are sent). But that could be exactly the problem: now that the probes themselves are handled by the bounce system, an "is bouncing" status gets triggered for them, too. 
 
--
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

 

Duane,

Or in other words, according to what you wrote, the probe bounces are possibly not *supposed* to be tracked in the Activity Log; but the experience now (the bug I'm bringing up) is they are currently, for whatever reason, actually triggering  "is bouncing" entries there.
 
--
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

JediPirx
 

Thank you for the explanation. The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days so conditions
were not met, as you have stated.

Stan/jp

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

Subject : Re : [beta] A 554 Bounce code not recognized as
bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed
Date : Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:51:52 -0800
From : J_Catlady <@J_Catlady>
To : main@beta.groups.io

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.

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:44 PM, JediPirx wrote:
The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days
The bounce days don't have to be consecutive. They just have to satisfy the conditions I mentioned. But yeah, that's basically the reason. The bounces were too spread out. You'd get a couple that satisfied "at least one bounce within every consecutive four days," but you also needed four in a row, and you never got four in a row so it would go back to square one and start recounting.
 
--
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

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
you also needed four in a row,
Meaning, four in a row of the "one bounce within every consecutive four days"
 
--
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