Hi all,
We've hit a scenario where a stakeholder is automatically marked Inactive much sooner than expected, and the root cause appears to be how farewell emails are attributed.
What's happening
- Stakeholders are auto-marked Inactive by a scheduled (daily) job.
- Normally a stakeholder is marked Inactive after 90 days with no communication.
- However, once a farewell email is on record for a contact, a shorter 14-day silence window applies instead of the usual 90 days.
- The issue: the stakeholder had sent a farewell email — but the farewell was announcing another person's departure, not their own. The system attributed the farewell to the sender rather than to the person actually leaving (who was named in the email).
- Because a farewell was now on record against the sender, the 14-day rule applied to them. When that stakeholder then had no communication for more than 14 days, the job marked them Inactive — even though they never actually left.
Impact
- A still-active stakeholder gets flipped to Inactive prematurely. (As soon as a new communication occurs with them, they're marked Active again, so no data is lost — but the status is misleading in the meantime.)
Enhancement request
- Improve farewell detection/attribution so a farewell is tied to the actual departing contact (the person named in the email) rather than the email sender. This would prevent active stakeholders from being incorrectly switched to the 14-day window and marked Inactive.
Has anyone else run into this? Would appreciate seeing this attribution improvement prioritized.
Thanks!