Date   

moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
you also needed four in a row,
Meaning, four in a row of the "one bounce within every consecutive four days"
 
--
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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:44 PM, JediPirx wrote:
The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days
The bounce days don't have to be consecutive. They just have to satisfy the conditions I mentioned. But yeah, that's basically the reason. The bounces were too spread out. You'd get a couple that satisfied "at least one bounce within every consecutive four days," but you also needed four in a row, and you never got four in a row so it would go back to square one and start recounting.
 
--
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


moderated Re: A 554 Bounce code not recognized as bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed

JediPirx
 

Thank you for the explanation. The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days so conditions
were not met, as you have stated.

Stan/jp

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject : Re : [beta] A 554 Bounce code not recognized as
bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed
Date : Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:51:52 -0800
From : J_Catlady <@J_Catlady>
To : main@beta.groups.io

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 02:30 PM, JediPirx wrote:

Why did GIO not flag these 10 users/email addresses last year ?
I do not know.

Because the conditions back then for setting a member to "bouncing"
were not satisfied. You need either a hard bounce, or at least one soft
bounce within every consecutive four consecutive days after the first
soft bounce, plus at least four soft bounces total, for the member to
be flagged as bouncing. Those are all 554.30 codes in what you posted,
and they did not (until the recent bug fix) count as a hard bounce. So
you needed other condition. Looking quickly through the dates in your
example (and bear in mind I'm looking quickly), it does not seem that
the bouncing dates conditions were satisfied.

If the above were to happen today, the member would be set to
"bouncing" because 554 now qualifies as a hard bounce and you
would not need all those date conditions.


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 08:48 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address?
The reason I ask is that if you ban by entering the email address, a new member record for the banned account is created (as I understand it), regardless of whether or not the email address was already a member of the group. My guess is that that's the cause of the NMM3.
 
--
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


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

Actually I have a couple that are not NMM. However, all (or nearly all) of the NMM ones did not have that status when banned. One clue is that they're all NMM(3). And all, or nearly all, of them posted at least one approved message. This can be easily checked from their member activity log.
--
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


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 08:15 PM, Duane wrote:
On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned.
In my group they've all become NMM. Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address? 
 
--
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


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

Duane
 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 09:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM.
I'm not seeing that on all of them. On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned.

Duane


moderated Re: Banned not in Banned list #bug

 

Mark,

Not only is it still not working, but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM. This is correct for email addresses that were banned without having joined the group, but is not correct for most others.
--
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


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:36 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:
NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.
I think there's a separate thread for that. 
 
--
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


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:22 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.
I'm responding to this since the suggestion originally posted on canny was mine: That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to view/access certain things or not, with Member Notes being a prime example. I generally don't want all moderators to see the Notes, which may contain personal or confidential information. Etc. I'm not talking about filtering message content from moderators, which is what you seem to be alluding to here? Just specific groups.io pages, etc. And you also seem to be simply distinguishing here between moderators and non-moderators, rather than what abilities and permissions certain moderators can have as opposed to others. So I really don't understand this comment.
 
--
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


moderated Re: Hide Email Addresses In Archives fails to mask email addresses in Display Names #bug

 

Mark,

I wrote:

Applying the same rule used for message bodies to email address syntax
matched in the Display Name display would resolve this.
I hope it is understood that I'm still interested in a resolution to this, my lack of response to some of the advice and comments from others notwithstanding.

Shal


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

Charles Roberts
 

What he said.....and NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.

On Feb 9, 2020 4:22 PM, Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?
There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are currently tied together with the individual abilities that would, at the same time, allow a level of ability not necessary.

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.

Further granularity would allow us to isolate specific abilities and information flow to maximize what differently tasked moderators are able to do and what information the receive to best do their tasks.


--

Bob Bellizzi



moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?
There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are currently tied together with the individual abilities that would, at the same time, allow a level of ability not necessary.

In our groups we have people who are really well versed in the diseases we cover and can answer questions about them in very helpful ways. They are not necessarily the ones who are good at or enjoy doing group administrative jobs like moderation, admitting new members, etc.

Further granularity would allow us to isolate specific abilities and information flow to maximize what differently tasked moderators are able to do and what information the receive to best do their tasks.


--

Bob Bellizzi


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

 

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 06:46 AM, ro-esp wrote:
I'm not sure what "granularity" means here
You could read the original suggestion for an understanding of this. There is already some granularity (called "permissions") in what mods can and can't do. The suggestion is for more, and for better matching between current mod permissions and what they can now view.
 
--
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


moderated Re: More mod-permission granularity #suggestion

ro-esp
 

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:55 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

The granularity of mod permissions is currently very crude.
I'm not sure what "granularity" means here

Pls add settings for the group owner to control

3. In general, review all the possible things moderators currently have access
to and permission for by default, and consider making them individual mod
settings.
You want moderators to decide what they view and what not?

What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on moderated?
What good is a moderator who cannot be reached off-list?


groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo


moderated calendar #suggestion

ogqc81
 

Ability to send scheduled monthly events. currently when we fill out our calendar 3-6 months in advance, when the month calendar is scheduled, it will send all 3-6 months worth of events. We would need to see only information for 1 month. Will this be possible in an update as its not a feature that is currently available.


moderated Re: Is it possible to create a preview of a link? #suggestion

Tom H
 

I posted a prior reply to this but it seems to have poofed. Since then, I have discovered that facebook does preview an image that is in the post being linked. If there is no image in the post, then the image box on the left of the preview is empty. So I guess what would be desirable would be a default icon for the group that facebook could include in the preview when there is no image available from the post. 


moderated Re: Bounce handler adds "is bouncing" log entry for bounce from another group, when member already blue B in the group #bug

 

I left the bouncing member in the group so that I could see what would happen when the next bounce probe went out four days later. That was today, and sure enough, the bounce of the bounce probe generated another log entry "is bouncing" when (of course) the member's bouncing status has not changed.
--
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


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On 7 Feb 2020 at 20:00, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Changes to the site this week:
- CHANGE: Standardized on the term `member`; we used `subscriber` and `user` previously. Several
tweaks to the group settings page. Changed NuM to NMM.
- INTERNAL: Much work to support moving from Elasticsearch 5 to Elasticsearch 7, including
optimizations for full reindexing.
- BUGFIX: Introduced and then fixed a bug that caused errors when trying to join a subgroup.
- CHANGE: The text when creating a group said that new members would be NuM 2, but the group was
created with NuM 1. All new groups are now created with NuM 2.
- API: Removed `sub_group_access` from `/creategroup` endpoint.
- CHANGE: Removed the Create Subgroups dropdown when creating a new group since subgroups are now a
premium feature.
- INTERNAL: Switched from one SSL certificate for all enterprise domains, to individual certs for
each domain.
- BUGFIX: Changed how we sort messages in the Messages/Expanded messages view to use message created
date instead of object date, to account for groups that had messages imported that were not strictly
date ordered (or that already had messages in the archives).
- NEW: Rate limiting joining groups and other things to help detect/prevent the `mass subscription`
attacks we were seeing this week.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark
Isn't the second CHANGE in contradiction to the first?

Jim Fisher

--
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom (needs updating)
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


moderated Re: Site updates #changelog

 

On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:06 AM Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 08:00 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
CHANGE: The text when creating a group said that new members would be NuM 2, but the group was created with NuM 1. All new groups are now created with NuM 2.
Should that be NMM instead of NuM?
 
It is. I just wrote that part of the #changelog before I changed the terminology everywhere.

Thanks,
Mark