| 1 |
On Monday 06 December 2004 18:43, Kashani wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If you've never sent an email to your customers you're going to have a |
| 4 |
> lot of bounces. It's just one of those things. From past experiences I'd |
| 5 |
> consider myself lucky to get 80% working email addresses. This brings me |
| 6 |
> to my main point, bounce handling. Bounce handling is going to be |
| 7 |
> expensive in system resources initially, but your return is pretty quick. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Proper bounce handling should update you db with a marking of not |
| 10 |
> active, etc for addresses that bounce. Also if it bounces, it's dead. |
| 11 |
> I've seen some people wait for 5 bounces before marking an address dead. |
| 12 |
> That's just dumb. I'd go maybe as high as 2 bounces, this ain't 1996 and |
| 13 |
> mail pretty much just works now. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
If they are real bounces, yes. And in that case you should react on the first |
| 16 |
bounce rather than on the second. There are other cases. Think of a messed-up |
| 17 |
DNS server so the target mail server's name can't be resolved for a couple of |
| 18 |
hours. Think of the case that *you* have ended up in a spam database for |
| 19 |
whatever reason. Lots of other circumstances that can cause "bounces" that |
| 20 |
actually are temporary errors. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Uwe |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Alternative phrasing of the First Law of Thermodynamics: |
| 26 |
If you eat it, and you don't burn it off, you'll sit on it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives