# Bounce Score Setting Description
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125
**Category:** UX
**Created:** [May 12, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125 "2016-05-12T15:27:40Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@lrossouw](https://meta.discourse.org/u/lrossouw)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2016, 3:27pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125/1 "2016-05-12T15:27:40Z")
Just read the code on bounce score as I was not sure what happens with it.
The description in Settings says:
> The maximum user bounce score before the they are deactivated. A soft bounce adds 1, a hard bounce adds 2.
Based on what I read in the code the following would be clearer.
> The maximum user bounce score before we will stop emailing them. A soft bounce adds 1, a hard bounce adds 2. The bounce score get’s reset to zero 30 days after the last bounced email.
At the very least the typo “the they” should be corrected 😃
---
### Author:  [@zogstrip](https://meta.discourse.org/u/zogstrip)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2016, 9:33pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125/2 "2016-05-12T21:33:24Z")
I’ll fix the typo but I’m not sure I want all that text in the description of the setting. Might be better to link to a topic explaining it.
---
### Author:  [@lrossouw](https://meta.discourse.org/u/lrossouw)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125/3 "2016-05-12T21:35:09Z")
OK but just change it that we won’t deactivte “them” as I was worried my users was going to be blocked. That’s what it sounded like from the text. deactivate emailing them or stop emailing them or something like that.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [May 12, 2016, 9:45pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125/4 "2016-05-12T21:45:41Z")
> Max score before we will stop emailing a user. Soft bounce adds 1, hard bounce adds 2, score reset 30 days after last bounce.
That seems fine to me..
---
### Author:  [@zogstrip](https://meta.discourse.org/u/zogstrip)
#### Post date: [May 13, 2016, 8:59am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125/5 "2016-05-13T08:59:04Z")
I agree, much better 👍
[https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/4fe96974c812f43e19f658eec8650d6462b22f21](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/commit/4fe96974c812f43e19f658eec8650d6462b22f21)
---
### Author:  [@Peter\_Backgren](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Peter_Backgren)
#### Post date: [October 12, 2023, 5:35am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounce-score-setting-description/44125/6 "2023-10-12T05:35:37Z")
Don’t find many threads on soft bounce so I’ll explain my problem, maybe this works as expected.
A bunch of users changed company, email addresses changed obviously. They still get together at rather lenghty intervals.
But a lot of these users now soft-bounce. Which I have to investigate, just in case.
I don’t want to go in and change these users to a new email, neither email them about it, that’s pestering them. Theorethically I could do this if I’ve seen them login recently but that’s still manual work for me.
I don’t want to change their email preferences to off, they might get back in and usually then for a reason, i.e. want notifications again.
Setting soft-bounce reset to 720 days kinda works BUT does it reset automatically when a user logs in? That would make sense.
What I would like to see happening is, I just set the soft to a very high value. Once a user logs in, it’s reset for that user AND there is a notification for that user that your email might be invalid. If they ignore that, heck, not my problem anymore, **then** I’ll set their email notifications to off.
This is kinda related to me having all these lurking groups activating whenever there is a stock split or whatever (even have one handling family members dying occasionally and that is lurking extreme).
I wrote more reasons ages ago in this thread
> [@Automatic deletion of "inactive" users](https://meta.discourse.org/t/automatic-deletion-of-inactive-users/120625/3):
>
> Thanks very much …