I used the Newsletter feature for the first time and it was great. Used HTML and CSS.
Before, I had been using it to get a list of the current addresses, then sending the newsletter with Outlook Express. With OE, if an e-mail address had gone bad I got a notice that it didn't go through.
Using the Newsletter feature, is there any way to find out if a Newsletter didn't go through because of a bad address?
Thanks,
Peter
Not with the newsletter feature itself. What will happen you will get bounce backs in your email account that say they are a bad address.
Oh, that's fine. Just like when I sent them with Outlook Express.
But with OE, I got them right away. Is it possible that there's a delay in the e-mails going out? The two people I've checked with so far haven't received theirs. But I got mine right away.
I had to push the Continue button several times... kinda scary.
Thank you,
Peter
I can report now that I didn't get any notices from the four bad e-mail address I know about.
Also two forum members reported that they got two copies.
I'm not so sure I'll use the feature in the future!
Peter
You'll need to examine the email headers and check the Return-Path header. That is the email address that will receive the bounce. Many times, this is not the email you might be expecting it to be depending on how your host is configured. On many shared hosts, the email address is actually your hosting account username @ the primary domain of your shared host, not *your* domain, so all bounces will go into your main hosting account email folder.
I posted a note in my forum and found out that everyone got two copies.
Has anyone used this feature? Did you have to hit the Continue button several times?
Peter
I would not press continue the script should auto press the continue button after it finishes processing the current batch.
Oh, thank you for that. I'll try it next time.
Peter
Were you able to figure out where the bounce messages are going to?
No. But I decided I don't really need to know if a forum member has a bad address because I can't do anything about it anyway. I mean, if it's bad... I can't contact them for a new one, so what's the point in knowing.
Also, for my next newsletter I did NOT press the Continue button and everyone got just one copy.
Thanks,
Peter
If any member ever replies to a newsletter, those messages are probably going to the same place.
Glad you've got this sorted now.
I'm going to mark this one solved.
No, that's not correct.
I also get a copy of the newsletter, and it is "from" my address as well as "to" it. If someone replies to a newsletter, it comes to me at that same address.
Sending the newsletter out through Outlook Express, newsletters to bad e-mail addresses came back to me at this same address.
Now sending them through SMF they don't come back, and so I have no way of knowing if I have any (new) bad addresses. So I would not say that the question is solved.
However, as I wrote above, I'm no longer concerned about the problem, so I don't mind that you've marked it solved.
Thanks, Peter
P.S.
Just for fun as I know it would never be changed now...
The Mark Topic Solved button makes perfect sense to me. It's telling you to click on the button to mark the topic solved, implying that it isn't marked solved.
Topic Not Solved is confusing. The topic has been solved, and it's been marked solved. But there's a red sign staring you in the face that says Topic NOT Solved.
Every time I see Topic Not Solved I have to think twice to remember that it IS solved. Where's the logic in that?
It should read Mark Topic Not Solved to be consistent with the Mark Topic Solved button.
Lainaus käyttäjältä: peterinwa - kesäkuu 15, 2011, 11:08:21 AP
It should read Mark Topic Not Solved to be consistent with the Mark Topic Solved button.
You are correct. That would be consistant, and would make more sense. The only reason it isn't done that way is that the button is already "too wide".
This is a feature of one of the "topic solved" mods, I think.
You might make a request at the "site comments" board. I think it is worth requesting.