Lack of interest Change the way invalid e-mail (bounced) status works

[nrep]

At the moment, if a member is marked as "e-mail invalid (bounced)" they switch to use guest permissions, which may mean read-only mode for most forums, or it may completely change the forum experience if things are customised.

Instead of this, it would be preferable to have an option to not force a change of permissions. I would rather use the notices system to nudge members to correct their e-mail address, but not stop them from interacting with the forums. I can use the promotions system to move members to an alternate usergroup if I do want to limit things. The current setup is quite inflexible, which is out of character for the rest of the software - I like being able to customise things using permissions/notices/promotions etc... Of course, stopping e-mails being sent to the invalid address should still be enforced - everything else can be optional using existing methods.

Could this be considered as a option for a 1.4.x point release, as it's not a huge change - but will have a big impact on how the powerful bounce system can be used.

 

[Paul B]

Where's the incentive for those members to change their invalid email addresses if nothing changes and they can carry on as before?

I prefer the system as it works now, which is consistent with all other non-valid states.

 

[nrep]

Where's the incentive for those members to change their invalid email addresses if nothing changes and they can carry on as before?

The incentive can be anything if it's based on promotions. Personally, I'd stick with a persistent notice and stick with no e-mails being sent to them. However, other forum admins may want to go a step further and stop members from viewing or posting in certain sections, which they can do via permissions. Generally speaking, I know that on some forums I run that this change will cause some users to walk away as soon as they run into difficulty.

I prefer the system as it works now, which is consistent with all other non-valid states.

Yeah that's fine, but if there's an option not to enforce these rules, we can both be happy . If it wasn't enforced guest permissions, it could be set to be much more flexible using the existing promotions/permissions system - the way everything else is done.

 

[nrep]

Here's a message from @petertdavis that sums up the problem I'm envisaging:

Last week I (and when I say I, I of course mean @BamaStangGuy ) updated our member status based on whether or not their email were reported to our email provider (Sendgrid) as bounced. We ended up with a lot of false reports (ie, member really had a good email address, but for some reason the ISP reported to Sendgrid it was not). Now, a lot of these members are trying to log in and complain that it appears they've been banned. Is there any way I can lessen the restrictions on this status? My goal was to make sure we didn't continue to email stale addresses, not to make members think they are banned.