Date   

moderated Re: Change DMARC behavior for p=none #misc

Michael Halstead
 

This would frustrate our users who receive software patches via the project's mailing list.

Git takes patch author information from e-mail headers. Right now we have git hooks in place on the server to prevent munged author information from reaching the repositories. Our maintainers have to fix author information before pushing code. Right now our maintainers only have to do that for a few senders. This change would mean fixing that information for every patch. 

It is not easy to automate fixing author information given the many unique workflows used by our maintainers. Having correct header information, when possible, is very desirable.
-- 
Michael Halstead


moderated Re: Change DMARC behavior for p=none #misc

ro-esp
 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:22 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Right now, we munge the From line of messages for people who have DMARC
records of p=reject or p=quarantine. We do not do that for people who have
DMARC records of p=none. I propose changing that so that we also munge From
lines for people with DMARC records of p=none.
Please let me know if you have any objections or questions.
It's hard to have objections.... as I don't know what is talked about.
Does anyone care to explain/translate? "munge", "p=" ?

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

dave w
 

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 06:11 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?
An indexing method is most definitely required IMHO.
Haven't made any form of dbase or excel sheet without it. Sure on IOG there no 'programmable' reference but surely easier to instruct 'go to #23' than have to create them manually.
regards dave


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Larry Finch
 



On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:11 PM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?



Well, putting on my DBA hat, relational database theory requires that there be no duplicate rows in a database table. As you can’t control what people put into a row, the ID column assures that every row will be unique. For simple databases of a few tables with no complex joins it probably doesn’t matter, but it’s safest to have the ID column. Another rule of relational databases is that there is no intrinsic order to the rows in a table, so if you want to impose order the ID column or something similar (a date-time column, for example) is essential to have. As an example, select * from mytable is not required to return the rows in the same order every time. If order matters the SQL is select * from mytable order by ID.

Larry
--
Larry Finch

N 40° 53' 50"
W 74° 02' 55"


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

It might be usable if the Database controlling person could
specify the indexing interval at DB initiation and also
request reindex & interval at later times
--

Bob Bellizzi


moderated Re: Change DMARC behavior for p=none #misc

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:22 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Right now, we munge the From line of messages for people who have DMARC
records of p=reject or p=quarantine. We do not do that for people who have
DMARC records of p=none. I propose changing that so that we also munge From
lines for people with DMARC records of p=none. Recently, several people have
contacted support about this, and I think this change makes things more
straightforward.

Please let me know if you have any objections or questions.
I'm objecting to this. This would munge From for everybody. It'd be disruptive, and for what? What's the sense? p=none means no rejection. People (including me) make DMARC records with p=none in the belief that some large receivers consider messages passing DMARC as less likely spam, but we don't want the DMARC disruption, so p=none is deliberate and permanent.

Please give examples of problems because of p=none.

--
Lena


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Charles Roberts
 

I agree.  Many times I put it on the right side and hide it from my user.....but it's nice to know it's always there when I want it.



On Feb 20, 2020 2:23 PM, "Alex Stone via Groups.Io" <alexstone87@...> wrote:
Sorry to be a boring old programmer, but I’ve always found it useful to have an Id column in a database.


On 20 Feb 2020, at 17:11, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Alex Stone
 

Sorry to be a boring old programmer, but I’ve always found it useful to have an Id column in a database.


On 20 Feb 2020, at 17:11, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Bob Schrempp
 

I find a record number useful, make it only visible to a moderator or make it so it can be turned on or off (shown or not shown). 


Bob


moderated Re: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

That’s easily solvable by sending an email message notifying them their message is being moderated, along with a copy of the message. And I think that would be very useful. But the synchronicity problem remains, of a sender trying to delete a message at the same time a moderator is working on moderating it. That’s the ugly/messy part making it seem not worth the trouble. 


On Feb 20, 2020, at 10:06 AM, David Grimm <engrdave325@...> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:51 PM, JohnF wrote:
How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval?
If a message is sent by email, the sender wouldn't even know it was being moderated, unless the group has a policy that every message from every sender is moderated.. Some members think that any delay in publishing their message is due only to the mechanical computer system. 

Dave

--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

David Grimm
 

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 06:51 PM, JohnF wrote:
How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval?
If a message is sent by email, the sender wouldn't even know it was being moderated, unless the group has a policy that every message from every sender is moderated.. Some members think that any delay in publishing their message is due only to the mechanical computer system. 

Dave


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

 

Mark, I think you mean "remove that column." I recalled suggesting this in the past, and I found the thread:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/1763947#8385
It seems the conclusion (using the term loosely) was to keep the #'s but make them visible only to mods.

--
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: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

 

Mark,


I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that [column]? Opinions?

Or, convert it to a permalink icon on each row that shows the ID number as a tooltip. Possibly moved to the right as Duane suggested. Preserving its usability as a sorting key to put the rows in creation order.

Shal


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

Duane
 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:11 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Opinions?
I can work with it either way.  Most of the time I don't use it, but it can be handy for seeing which order the items were added in some cases.  How about another option, move it to the right side, out of the way?

Thanks,
Duane


moderated Re: Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

lloyd lehrer
 

Just allow it to be hidden.

lloyd lehrer

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 9:11 AM Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Remove the ID column in databases #suggestion

 

Hi All,

In each database, there is an ID column, assigned automatically, starting from 1 and monotonically increasing for each row. It seems that this column leads to some confusion, especially for databases that are edited frequently. 

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Better error when renaming a group #suggestion #done

Duane
 

We've verified that the group also can't be created, but doesn't exist.  Probably because it was once created, then deleted.  If this is the case, I think the error should be "That address is not available."  That should provide a better understanding of the situation.  (Since this suggestion is directly related, I'll just add it here.)

Thank you,
Duane


moderated Re: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:04 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
Valid, but minimal point.
If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?
OR
If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same time, does who ever finishes first prevail?
That has nothing to do with the issue of allowing members to delete pending messages. It's completely separate. It's the issue Shal recently brought up when he suggested his "claimed" feature for pending messages.

I wouldn't argue against this improvement because it might prevent whoever acted first from determining the outcome...
Not the issue.
 
--
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: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

On Feb 20, 2020, at 5:48 AM, J_Catlady <@J_Catlady> wrote:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.
Not bad except for this part. The issue is when a moderator starts to moderate a message first, and then the sender gives the instruction to delete. None of this solves that, which is really the only problematic issue.
Valid, but minimal point.
If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?
OR
If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same time, does who ever finishes first prevail?

Although the slim likelihood of both the Sender and a Moderator/Owner would be interacting with a Pending Message at the same time might be greater than two (or more) Moderators/Owners doing so, there currently seems to be little or no problem. I suspect that would continue to be the case.

If there currently is a 'lock' that prevents more than one Moderator/Owner from interacting with a Pending Message, could it not also be used to prevent any second party (whether Sender or Moderator/Owner) from doing so.

That being said, such a 'coincidence' seems too rare to be worried about.
If it is such a worry, Senders should think more about what they post before sending...



Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)
The idea is that if the message is claimed (assuming that feature even gets implemented), the sender would not be allowed to delete it. That would solve the issue. But it would involve fairly massive changes to the UI (web and email notifications) that seem overly complicated just in order to let a user change their mind about a message sent.
Currently Claim only prevents other Moderators or Owners from moderating a Claimed message (or approving/rejecting a Claimed subscription request) by email.
All Moderators (with appropriate privileges) and Owners can alway moderate/approve via the web.
I agree that "fairly massive changes" don't seem worthwhile to change the Claim feature.
Otherwise the suggestion is to use existing structures in more places.


The part about giving the sender a copy of their message if posted via email sounds fine. I still see no reasonable way to allow a sender to delete a pending message.
The same way a Moderator/Owner can Forward a Message Approval Require email notification to Reject a Pending Message,
a Sender should be able to Forward their Your Message Requires Approval email notification to Delete the Pending Message.


I agree with the original poster's notion, but it is not a pressing concern of mine.
It does seem that the current way Groups.io functions in a 'parallel manner' for Moderators/Owners, it could also for Senders.

I wouldn't argue against this improvement because it might prevent whoever acted first from determining the outcome...


moderated Re: "Pending Message" notification that could be clicked on to delete it. #suggestion

 

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 01:48 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
Posting via an online form (anywhere) typically fails to provide the option to receive a copy of one's 'sent' message.
BTW this is mostly true, but it's an apt comparison with groups.io only in the case that messages are moderated and the user can't see their message on the site while it's still pending. (NYT, whose comments section is moderated, is an odd exception. They don't send you a copy of the comment while it's still on moderation, but they do send it to you after it's approved.) 
 
--
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