On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 09:21 AM, D R Stinson wrote:

In my experience, this is the source of much of the wasted space. We have members who read and share by email, and they just click on reply. The result is the duplication of the same image a number of times. Even if the system just checked for the same image more than once in a thread would be an improvement.

Yes!
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

I would really not like to have log entries for individual attachments deleted, ever. It would serve no purpose in my group and could just deluge the log. So if individual entries could not happen at all, or be a group option, that would be great.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 05:29 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:

Mark -- Thanks for the heads-up...such is generally my understanding of how the "Out of Space" setting was intended to function. I'm assuming the extra 5% is to allow file and photo uploads to continue to work?

Yes, that's correct.

What happens if 95% of your quota is being used by other items -- would ALL of the group's attachments then be deleted? Not saying that's wrong behavior, but want to clarify.

Yes, all attachments would be deleted.

Also, will upload restrictions now be enforced at the quota level (exactly 1 GB, 10 GB, etc)? In the past, some have reported substantial "grace storage" before such uploads were actually inhibited.

Yes. The "grace storage" was only for attachments, because this process wasn't working. It's always been the case that if your group is over the limit, you could not upload additional photos or files.

Thanks, Mark

How about deduplication first? Eliminate multiple instances of
the same file . . .

Right, that too would be very valuable. If I understand it correctly
your idea is roughly equivalent to (3) here:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545

In my experience, this is the source of much of the wasted space. We have members who read and share by email, and they just click on reply. The result is the duplication of the same image a number of times. Even if the system just checked for the same image more than once in a thread would be an improvement.

I also agree as well about posters who put a small image in their signature. By itself they add very little, but they can add up quickly and some posters don't understand they're not saved with the message, but separately. I'm wondering if any image in a signature shouldn't be stored in a members profile where it could be accessed by the system, and all images otherwise in signatures be deleted automatically.

Another 2¢ worth.

Dano

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 08:49 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

The request is inapplicable to them.

I should say the request *as stated* is inapplicable to them. There's nothing preventing having an optional update notification for Group Guidelines, if Mark sees fit to implement that. But I'd say it's in the "don't hold your breath category." The request as stated here is a five-second fix.
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 08:46 AM, Ann Wild wrote:

I agree as well.  I have updated our Guidelines several times

I'm talking about Files, not Member Notices. There's already an update date at the bottom of the Guidelines and members don't see any "upload date" for Member Notices anyway. The request is inapplicable to them. 
 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

I agree as well.  I have updated our Guidelines several times of late, but having the old original upload date remaining is misleading to readers.  My only option is to add the update date in the description.  But readers may miss that.

Larry,

How about deduplication first? Eliminate multiple instances of the
same file--perhaps even annotating the messages to indicate where the
file has been retained--reducing space with no loss of information.

Right, that too would be very valuable. If I understand it correctly your idea is roughly equivalent to (3) here:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545

The only downside I can think of is what Bruce mentioned: it may be too much to implement and test before this sweep.

Shal

Now that the Yahoo debacle is over, can we get the database options updated so that a member can post their address and hide it from all but the owner/moderators and the database creator?  This would REALLY help when we have group buys or someone is providing a product to the members.  Thanks, Dale

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 06:58 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

In two weeks, for those groups that are over their limit, attachments will be deleted to get each group under the storage limit. Attachments will be deleted from the oldest messages first. The text in the messages will not be deleted, just the attachments themselves. I will delete enough attachments to get the group to 95% of their storage limit. After that, the process will run nightly to keep each group under their storage limit.

Mark -- Thanks for the heads-up...such is generally my understanding of how the "Out of Space" setting was intended to function. I'm assuming the extra 5% is to allow file and photo uploads to continue to work?

What happens if 95% of your quota is being used by other items -- would ALL of the group's attachments then be deleted? Not saying that's wrong behavior, but want to clarify.

Also, will upload restrictions now be enforced at the quota level (exactly 1 GB, 10 GB, etc)? In the past, some have reported substantial "grace storage" before such uploads were actually inhibited.

In this context I hope we can focus on completion of the bug-fix (and minimizing its "surprise factor" on existing groups currently over quota) before attempting to introduce new, indirectly-related features. It seems as if this thing could get complicated enough without going down that road.

My $0.02,
Bruce

--
Larry Marks

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 11:25 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

That is indeed an existing group setting, at the bottom of the `Message Policies` section of the Group Settings page.

 

Not to get too far offtrack, but it might be better if the Out Of Space choice said "Bounce Messages With Attachments" to make it clear.  As is, "Bounce Messages", sounds like all messages would be bounced (though I know they wouldn't.)

Having the 'Keep' option Shal mentioned in his other message, that moderators could use to prevent an attachment from being deleted during the purge, might be less work than moving?  This way there'd be no need to keep things related, as with a move, but I can see situations where being able to save the information elsewhere would be useful.  I don't think it should be a member option because most likely everyone would feel that their attachment needed to be saved.

Thanks,
Duane

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 08:56 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:

It would be great to be able to move attachments from messages to Files or Photos

I think that would be a very popular option! However, IIRC non - photo format attachments cannot be found in the emailed photos album (although they are in there somewhere) so there would IMHO need to be a way of finding them more easily.

Chris

Mark,

On Jan 8, 2020, at 1:39 AM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Mark,

My thought is for the initial deletion that I will not log each of
those messages, to avoid a mass spamming of everyone's activity log.

Would it be possible during the initial deletion to have a single log entry showing the high-water mark of the deletion (date and/or message number) and the number of affected messages?

Yes, please.

Possibly this could be used in lieu of individual entries any time a deletion batch exceeds some (large) number of affected messages.

Perhaps with a link (or drop down menu) to the list of individual deletions...

Also, bump: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/14338

Agreed.
It would be great to be able to move attachments from messages to Files or Photos, where they could be rationally organized - not only would this help to preserve valued attachments, but make them easier to find or access. It would be a bonus if a link to the attachment remained with the message should someone happen to be looking at old messages.

Attachments when moved to Files or Photos could be titled intuitively, rather than having to edit message Subject lines which often aren't (and the notifications that message editing can trigger).

Michael

Mark,

My thought is for the initial deletion that I will not log each of
those messages, to avoid a mass spamming of everyone's activity log.

Would it be possible during the initial deletion to have a single log entry showing the high-water mark of the deletion (date and/or message number) and the number of affected messages?

Possibly this could be used in lieu of individual entries any time a deletion batch exceeds some (large) number of affected messages.

Also, bump: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/14338

Shal

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 07:58 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

This almost sounds cumbersome.

What if part two was when the 100% limit was reached and new uploads were no longer allowed? This would give group owners control on prioritization as to what got deleted.

--
Gerald

It now works on Databases - THANK YOU