On Jul 8, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Martin Pool wrote: > That sounds good. > > A few thoughts: > > * Marking the user as clearly disabled if they have no working email > addresses has the benefit of possibly saving other users from wasting > their time trying to talk to them (eg on a bug or question.)
Yeah, that crossed my mind too. Thank you for calling it out. Even if we do not use the "disabled" idea internally it would be a nice-to-have feature. > > * Having your account disabled due to bouncing mail probably should > not block you logging in using that email address, if you still > remember the password. (Does that imply a different kind of > disablement to other cases?) Yeah, I agree, and yes, that implies that it is not what we call "disabled" now. I think we need a different mechanism (which is a change in my thinking, to be clear). > * It might be interesting to count how many addresses ever end up > getting reenabled, and also how many addresses have some mail bounced > but not all. True. > * I see some "I'm not getting any mail" irc questions. I wonder if > exposing the bounciness of an address in the web ui would be useful, > even before it gets to the point of being disabled, just on the > address page saying "%d out of %d mails sent to this address recently > bounced." I like the idea, though I'd prefer less detail: just a general warning (like a yellow light) that LP has some bounces for your preferred email address that are "active" given the Mailman-inspired heuristics. > > * Generally speaking telling people about mail problems through the > web ui is more likely to work than telling them through mail. :) :-) I'm getting a feel for a revised proposal, on the basis of the emails I've received so far. I plan to send it out later today. Thank you Gary _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
