 |
Fang Xianfu
GURU
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5155
Location: United Kingdom
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:34 pm
Some kind of management for email bounces.
|
If an email's invalid, the person who sent it might want to know that. It might prompt them to do a more thorough online search for those people, or it might just give peace of mind that the message really got through and didn't just disappear into the great beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:02 pm
|
Well, the Trusted Contact is not supposed to have any access to the Friends list, so you don't actually want them to get bounced email.
Although I haven't actually tried this yet. Since the "From" field of the email is set to the Trusted Contact email, I wonder if they *do* get bounces. That's something we need to test. |
|
|
|
|
Fang Xianfu
GURU
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5155
Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:36 pm
|
I just tested it and yes, you do get email bounces as the trusted contact, which I guess could work.
|
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:39 pm
|
Hmm, that's actually bad. Like I said, there shouldn't be any way for the trusted contact to learn the identity of the friends list unless a friend specifically replies to the message (as mentioned in the message disclaimer at the bottom).
Not sure how I can set it up so that Replies go to the Trusted Contact, but not bounces. I'll need to look into that. |
|
|
|
|
Tarn
GURU
Joined: 10 Oct 2000
Posts: 873
Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:48 pm
|
| Zugg wrote: |
Hmm, that's actually bad. Like I said, there shouldn't be any way for the trusted contact to learn the identity of the friends list unless a friend specifically replies to the message (as mentioned in the message disclaimer at the bottom).
Not sure how I can set it up so that Replies go to the Trusted Contact, but not bounces. I'll need to look into that. |
Bounces come from admin addresses, not the user you tried to email, so is there an easy out?
Can you make the reply-to address in the mail headers a daemon at slightlymorbid.com that checks to see who the sender is? If it's from a user on an issued mailing, reply that he's got the wrong address. If it's from another user (postmaster, etc.), swallow it and maybe log some data in the future that's accessible to the user but probably not the trustee.
In the body of messages that are sent out you can place:
"If you want to get in contact with my trustee for further information, he can be reached at trustee00432@slightlymorbid.com. Please do not press reply for this email; the trustee will not see it. Messages will be discarded unless they're sent from the same email address receiving this message." |
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:52 pm
|
Tarn, changing the body of the message to place the Trusted Contact email is an excellent idea. Then I can just have the message sent by the server itself. I'm just going to ignore bounces on the server.
This won't effect messages that the customer tries to send directly to their friends, since those messages still get sent with the customer's email address in the Return field, so the customer will still see those bounces. It was just the Trusted Contact emails that I was worried about, and your solution for that is good.
Even though bounces come from an admin address, the message will usually tell you what user at that address you were trying to reach. Since each email server gives somewhat different bounce messages, we can't ensure that the friends email is remaining private. |
|
|
|
|
Fang Xianfu
GURU
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5155
Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:43 am
|
It's not. This is the contents of the bounce email that your mailer gives:
| Code: |
The original message was received at Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:35:35 -0600
from localhost [127.0.0.1]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<dgasdgasgd@adfglkNAhAdgijhajkdgjh.sdasdfkjkfd>
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 5.1.2 <dgasdgasgd@adfglkNAhAdgijhajkdgjh.sdasdfkjkfd>... Host unknown (Name server: adfglknahadgijhajkdgjh.sdasdfkjkfd: host not found)
Reporting-MTA: dns; www.zuggsoft.com
Received-From-MTA: DNS; localhost
Arrival-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:35:35 -0600
Final-Recipient: RFC822; dgasdgasgd@adfglkNAhAdgijhajkdgjh.sdasdfkjkfd
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.2
Remote-MTA: DNS; adfglknahadgijhajkdgjh.sdasdfkjkfd
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Host unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:35:35 -0600 |
And there's a copy of the original email attached.
Thing is, it's fine for the trustee to not be given any valid emails, but since the email's come back invalid, the trustee might want to do some more digging to find this particular friend and tell them what's going on. By sending bounces to the trustee, you're not actually revealing anyone's real email address, which should still be fine.
If you really don't want to do it that way, you could have the server log the bounce messages in the account somewhere, possibly as an extension to the email history page. That way at least there's a record that one particular friend wasn't notified. |
|
|
|
|
Tarn
GURU
Joined: 10 Oct 2000
Posts: 873
Location: USA
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 1:59 pm
|
| Fang Xianfu wrote: |
It's not. This is the contents of the bounce email that your mailer gives:
|
What isn't what?
How did you create this bounce? Was "dgasdgasgd@adfglkNAhAdgijhajkdgjh.sdasdfkjkfd" what the user typed in as a mailing recipient?
| Quote: |
Thing is, it's fine for the trustee to not be given any valid emails, but since the email's come back invalid, the trustee might want to do some more digging to find this particular friend and tell them what's going on. By sending bounces to the trustee, you're not actually revealing anyone's real email address, which should still be fine.
|
I must not be understanding you. Most bounce messages clearly identify exactly who was supposed to be receiving the message. Knowing who you need to resend to or give a phone call to is the whole point of a bounce message.
Also: one of the designed features of the service is that the trustee doesn't necessarily know who he's sending the mailing to. Giving him enough information to "do some more digging to find this particular friend" would break that feature.
It would probably be useful to have a "public/private" toggle, either per mailing or per recipient, because some users of the service may be happy to have the trustee seeing the mailing list if there's a problem with the mailing, or adding his own comments on the details of what happened if people have questions.
| Quote: |
If you really don't want to do it that way, you could have the server log the bounce messages in the account somewhere, possibly as an extension to the email history page. That way at least there's a record that one particular friend wasn't notified. |
Telling the trustee the number of bounces is enough for him to approach the account holder and clear things up once he's out of the hospital or whatever. If the account holder is dead, and he wanted the mailing list private from the trustee, then a permanent bounce is pretty much the end of the line if his wishes are followed. It might be useful to detect common "mailbox full" type messages and resend in a week, but there's not much else that can be done.
-Tarn |
|
|
|
|
Fang Xianfu
GURU
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 5155
Location: United Kingdom
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:32 pm
|
Zugg said "Since each email server gives somewhat different bounce messages, we can't ensure that the friends email is remaining private" - I said "It's not."
I created the bounce by creating a friend with that address, logging in as a trusted contact with "YOUR email" I have access to, and sending an email of a category that contact would receive. Nothing complex.
I guess the ultimate destination of my train of thought is that someone you trust enough to get in touch with your friends on your behalf after some unspecified calamity can probably be trusted enough to be given a note saying who couldn't be contacted and some other ways they could try getting in touch with them. If you're dead or in a coma, or evacuated and not easily contactable or something, they can't just ask you, so they need those tools. |
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 5:03 pm
|
What I was saying is that if you sent a message to "user@server.com" and the "server.com" part is valid, but "user" is not a valid user account, then you will get a bounce message with a different error saying "user is an unknown user", instead of the "host unknown" message.
And as Tarn said, if there is enough information in the bounce for you to try to determine who the person was to track them down, then that defeats the whole point of the privacy.
I actually have an unused field in the Friends database for "Hidden" that would let you decide which Friends are hidden to the Trusted Contact or not. I'll be implementing more of those kind of features in the future, but not for the public release. |
|
|
|
|
Tarn
GURU
Joined: 10 Oct 2000
Posts: 873
Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:39 pm
|
| Fang Xianfu wrote: |
I guess the ultimate destination of my train of thought is that someone you trust enough to get in touch with your friends on your behalf after some unspecified calamity can probably be trusted enough to be given a note saying who couldn't be contacted and some other ways they could try getting in touch with them. If you're dead or in a coma, or evacuated and not easily contactable or something, they can't just ask you, so they need those tools. |
I happen to agree with you for the people I'd be likely to contact, but what you're describing is still something that the service is specifically designed to prevent if the account holder so wishes. For the "out of contact but everything's going to be ok" messages in particular, people might want to keep their pseudonyms intact.
| Zugg wrote: |
I actually have an unused field in the Friends database for "Hidden" that would let you decide which Friends are hidden to the Trusted Contact or not. I'll be implementing more of those kind of features in the future, but not for the public release.
|
While I'm thinking about it- I see more than a simple "hidden" flag (just typing up some thoughts, definitely not recommending features for inclusion)
I see a few possible toggles:
1) trustee can see users but is anonymous to them
2) trustee can see users and is contactable by them - the service is basically an open list of contact information, and the value is in the convenience of the user not having to bother the trustee every time he updates the list.
3) trustee can't see users but can be contacted by them and respond - user wants his pseudonym to remain pseudo even after death, but wants online communities to know what happened and allow questions and followup.
4) trustee can't see users, be contacted by them, or respond - stronger version of (3), since clearly allowing trustees and users to converse allows either one of them to reveal their identities to the other. This is probably impossible to be perfect about, because the recipients of the message could always post the message on the internet along with other known information about the pseudonym, asking "Hey, any idea who this might be? If you're the trustee or anyone else who knows more, please contact me at..."
5) the above options, but using different settings for different types of messages (temporary crisis vs death)
-Tarn |
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:40 pm
|
I don't want to make the system too complicated right now. I'm holding off on any sort of "hidden/public" option until later. For now I want to keep the concept that your friend's list is completely private and hidden from your Trusted Contacts.
I have modified the messages sent by Trusted Contacts so that they are now sent from *your* email address. So you will receive any bounced messages, rather than your Trusted Contact. The email address of the Trusted Contact is now appended to the end of the message telling the recipient where they can reply to get more information or send condolences.
That should ensure the friend's identify remains private, even with a bounced message. And yet, if you are using the system yourself to send messages to friends, you'll properly receive the bounced messages. |
|
|
|
|
Haxi051
Newbie
Joined: 04 Mar 2010
Posts: 1
|
Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 4:38 am
|
If you check SAP code, it will not change anything in an eMail which comes back as a bounce from whatever mailserver, it just update some data to execute the rules which are maintained in ERMS.
Therefore the problem you have with Borderware mail server is the standard behaviour of all external mail servers, which normally send back bounces as an attachment and that is how it works in standard SAP CRM system.
Moreover, there are many different mail servers, some do not attach the original eMail. Try one if you can if that crucial one for you. |
|
|
|
|
joetraff
Newbie
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 2
|
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:18 am
|
Sometimes valid email addresses bounces.
What is the remedy of it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
