[smallnix]

Thanks for all the work that goes into this crucial service!

3% and "3,200 people manually unpaused issuance" does seem much higher than expected to me and no cause for celebration, especially at this scale.

Are there no better patterns to be exploited to identify 'zombies'? Running experiments with blocking and then unblocking to validate should work here.

I guess this falls into the bucket of: sure we can do that, given sufficient time and resources

[tux1968]

Why do you think that this indicates a problem in identifying zombies? The pause may have simply been the reason that someone became aware there was even a problem. The zombie might have persisted, if it hadn't been paused.

[smallnix]

> Why do you think that this indicates a problem in identifying zombies?

I understood a zombie to represent a client that is dead and will never come back to live again. Since they came back to live they were not actually zombies. So manual action from actually alive clients was required. That may be ok, since they behavior was not acceptable, but in the spirit of not penalizing it would be better to not block those clients if they can be identified and sufficient resources are available to shoulder their misbehaviour.

> The pause may have simply been the reason that someone became aware there was even a problem.

I didn't take that into account and it would be neat. But why would they become aware after this change? Because the error message(/code?) is now different?