Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology
Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ <http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/> I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net dawson@servint.com <mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote:
Colleagues,
I apologize for belaboring the point about 'hard' and 'soft' bounces when I know we're not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I'm talking about.
As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren't the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We're talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on.
There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There's a good chart worth looking at here:
http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/
I'm not a registrar, I'm a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I'm trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being 'down' because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn't disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net <http://www.servint.net> dawson@servint.com <mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax -------------------------
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Exactly - if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That's all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about 'hard' and 'soft' bounces when I know we're not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I'm talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren't the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We're talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There's a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I'm not a registrar, I'm a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I'm trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being 'down' because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn't disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
But if the email address published in the whois is not functional, you would just need to report it to ICANN compliance which would then investigate and if need be have the applicable registrar update this record. It seems to me rather more efficient than forcing the P/P provider to befriend its customers on skype. ;-) Luc On 04 Dec 2014, at 19:29, Metalitz, Steven <met@msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Exactly – if e-mail does not function, and there is some other way to contact them in order to relay the message, then the provider should use that other way, at least upon request. That’s all that we are asking for here. From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:20 AM To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Continuing the discussion on hard bounces, and deciding on terminology Thanks very much, this is extremely useful. As a representative of dumb users everywhere who are likely to be calling you in a blind panic many days after such an event occurs, I agree that the language we use, bouncing or otherwise, has to be crystal clear. It also has to take into account the possibility that users may designate some other way to contact them....a cell number, skype, etc. Cheers Stephanie On 14-12-02 1:28 PM, Christian Dawson wrote: Colleagues, I apologize for belaboring the point about ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ bounces when I know we’re not using that terminology, but I wanted to be delve deeper into that conversation to try to get us to acceptable terminology we CAN use. To do so, I want to explain further what I’m talking about. As I stated on the call, my background is as a web hosting provider. Despite being a small business, I run a network with over a million domain names sitting somewhere on it, and about 517,000 individual mail accounts I am aware of. I want to be clear that the kinds of bounces I was talking about aren’t the kind when you give a bogus gmail or hotmail account. We’re talking about mail from independent resolvers that source back to an independent domain hosted on a server - the kind most often used by one of my web hosting customers, or a customer of that customer, or a customer of that customer of a customer, and so on. There are tons of reasons for a permanent message failure in situations like these, a lot of them server conditions that are temporary in nature. There’s a good chart worth looking at here: http://www.activecampaign.com/help/bounces-soft-bounce-vs-hard-bounce/ I’m not a registrar, I’m a web hosting provider and a small business owner - so from my perspective I’m trying to make sure we adopt policies that will keep service tickets to a minimum. As a web hosting provider, I already incur a lot of support costs over the ICANN WHOIS validation process. Every week we have numerous customers who write us complaining of being ‘down’ because they missed an email and ended up getting their business presence suspended. I want to make sure that we adopt standards in a way that doesn’t disadvantage my customers or cause them to open service tickets that cost me money. I think getting the terminology right will be the best way to do that. ------------------------- Christian J. Dawson (703)847-1381 x 7120 Voice Chief Operations Officer, ServInt www.servint.net<http://www.servint.net/> dawson@servint.com<mailto:dawson@servint.com> (703)847-1383 Fax ------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg ________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. You must not copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Think of the environment: don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. --------------------------------------------------------
participants (4)
-
Christian Dawson -
Luc SEUFER -
Metalitz, Steven -
Stephanie Perrin