On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 at 16:30, Daniel LaLiberte wrote about "Re: bouncing...":
> Fine. For the display it would be more useful to say something like:
>
> over the last 7 days: 3 of 10 messages bounced
Exactly.
> >Also, the percentage -- is it for 7 days, week or a month?
>
> Good point. I assumed it was for the smallest time unit.
Or maybe for the biggest time unit? I haven't checked the code, but either
of us could be right.
> >> > That way if only 1 message was sent every week, and it bounced then the
> >> > user wouldn't be removed. I could instead remove him if there was a 100%
> >> > bounce over a month at a minimum of 3 bounces or something like that.
> >>
> >> Seems like an odd criteria, but at least the data is available already
> >> to use that criteria.
> >
> >Why is that odd? It's not very hard to reach 100% bouncing if you send one
> >message a week and the person bounces on it.
>
> Well, yes, you probably want some minimum number of messages that
> have been bounced before deciding to drop a subscriber, as well
> as a minimum time. But 3 seems like not much more than 1.
Just a number I threw out. Make it whatever you want.
> You'd also want some spread over that minimum time, so that if 10 bounces
> out of 10 messages occur in one day, and there was not much traffic
> the rest of the month, then we don't drop the person because of that
> one bad day. I can't think of a formula that would work though.
I posted something that detailed this about 4-8 weeks ago.
--
Brock Rozen brozen@torah.org
|
|
