In message <v04220843b4e3d55613d6@[192.168.1.5]>,
Vince Sabio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>** Sometime around 11:00 -0800 02/29/2000, Ronald F. Guilmette sent us:
>>Sharon Tucci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >{... list transfer story snipped...}
>>
>> >The number of bounces was what we expected - about 8-9%...
>>
>>Actually, that sounds rather high to me.
>>
>>If the old list hosting company _was_ actually cleaning out bouncing
>>addresses, why would you expect more than (say) 3-4%, tops?
>
>I disagree -- and not [just] because it's fun to disagree with you,
>Ron. Consider the fact that the list had been dormant for two months;
>that's plenty of time for a considerable number of e-mail addresses
>to go bad.
>
>If this had been mailed to within the past couple of weeks, I'd agree
>with your 3-4% figure. But 8-9% is pretty reasonable after a
>two-month hiatus IMO. (Speaking as a list owner for whom a two-month
>hiatus is pretty common.)
Agreed.
(I didn't see any mention of a ``two month hiatus'' in the original
message, but perhaps I just missed it. Anyway, yes, after 2 months,
8-9% might go bad.)
