The banner is helpful but I think the sender should really get a copy of, or access to viewing, their sent message.

--
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 Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 01:52 AM, Duane wrote:

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 06:09 PM, Maria McGrath wrote:

Is there any plan to have infinite scroll in databases ?  At the moment it only shows 20 rows at a time?

Actually, you can set your Items Per Page in your account to anything other than infinite scroll (20, 50, 100) and it shows that number.  I'm not sure why I.S. has never worked in databases.

I know this was brought up here in January, but I just noticed that when searching for something in the files of our group, this applies to files as well: Infinite scroll is not possible. If you choose "infinite scroll" you are set back to 20. We have many folders with some hundred files and databases and it´s quite tedious to have a choice up to 100 but not to be able to scroll infinitely.

If this was brought up in beta I suppose it got lost again like so many proposals.
Victoria

For our dog rescue group, we find the ID number very useful in that it provides integrity for our information, and it gives us an automatic count of the number of dogs that we rescue each year. I would really prefer giving people the option of hiding the ID column and also having the ability to choose a default  'sort-by' column.
Thank you!
Michelle

Add to that: did my post reach the system? It’s an acknowledgment of receipt, and I think it is sorely lacking.

--
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

Exactly. Those are all great reasons!

--
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

If I might add another reason to have a "Pending Message" notification:
I am currently a member of 6 groups, 3 that fall into the general subset that this one does.
Now, granted, most people's memory is probably much better than mine, but:
"Which group did I post that to?"
"Did I post to the right one?"
"Did I post?
are all questions i have asked myself.
The last one actually comes up more often than you might think because not all Moderators are as Johnny-on-the-spot as the Moderators of this group.

Bill

Yes, that would need to be added. And that’s the feature that I requested originally, and which I think would be the most useful, since currently, web posters have no record of a pending message. I requested that feature nearly a year ago. All of which, combined, is why I said at nearly the top of this thread that the feature would require fairly massive changes to the UI, just in the service of letting the sender change their mind.
I would still press for giving senders a copy (either via web or email) of their web-posted pending messages. The rest seems to have diminishing returns, but I certainly wouldn’t object to any of it.

--
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 Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 03:04 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

How is that possible if the member has posted via the web, since the sender
can't see the pending message and has no access to it whatsoever?

As part of the change, a feature would need to be added to show a web-using member the list of posts pending approval to which moderation comments could be attached. (Moderators could even use this feature to attach comments for other moderators to pending messages.)

For members using mail, they couldn't just reply to their own mail out of the sent box, as Groups.io couldn't tell the difference between that being a moderation comment or a new message reply. So, there'd either need to be a "Your message is being moderated" notice sent that could be replied to to add comments, or we could decide that this feature is little-used enough that a mail user could just send a generic to-the-moderators email not attached to a specific message (which can be done now).

JohnF

I would be fine with hiding it but, as you know, activity in a database references the row id and, as another has pointed out, uniquely identifies an individual row which is often necessary and very helpful.

What I would rather dearly appreciate is the ability to click directly to an id number from the activity log to see exactly what change has been made.

Jim

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:05 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

In particular I wouldn't want a moderator's claim to prevent a member from making a deletion request. That's because I sometimes leave a claimed message in the queue for hours (or a day) while I consider it or ask another moderator about it. If the member meanwhile decides to withdraw the message I'd like to know about that, and not have them prevented from making the request.

That is a good point. But there still seem to be the other issues/problems.
 
--
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 Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:48 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message

that's > pending approval?

I like that, if it is kept minimal, like the text box for entering a reason for an edit.

How is that possible if the member has posted via the web, since the sender can't see the pending message and has no access to it whatsoever?

--
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 Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:39 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

If you mean "hard at work writing a rejection note" that's the situation I was addressing recently (#24214); editing a message already claims it.

Yes, if your "claimed" feature is implemented, that could possibly be a way out of the dilemma, as mentioned. 

What if instead of actually deleting the message, the member's Delete request operates more like a kind of claim.

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Whoever gets to the message first (sender or mod) stops the other from affecting it one way or the other, no matter what you call it. Calling it "claimed" by the sender works fine. However, I'm not sure about the logistics of blocking approval and rejection via email. It seems you still have the problem that the moderator may start working on the message, and only after finishing and attempting to send the approval or rejection do they find out that the member has "claimed" (i.e., deleted) the message. So unless I'm missing something, the basic problem still remains if the mod is working by email.
 
--
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

Michael,

If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all
other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?

Depends on what you mean by "moderate" - the first moderator to Edit a pending message gets a "claim" on it. That prevents action by email, but only warns other moderators who attempt to act by web (they can override the "claim" warning by acting on the message despite it).

That is not (currently) true of Rejecting a message (which opens an edit box for the rejection notice.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/24214

It is also not true of simply opening the message from the list to look at it and maybe choose a button.

If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same
time, does who ever finishes first prevail?

Except for the Edit action, whoever finishes first prevails.

That is, if a bunch of moderators open a message to look at it, and one approves it then the rest (if they try to take an action) get a warning that the message no longer exists.

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.

I think a similar "lock" could be used, but I'd want it to be distinct in both appearance (so that mods would know whether it is a moderator claim or a sender's deletion request) and because I would want slightly different behavior.

In particular I wouldn't want a moderator's claim to prevent a member from making a deletion request. That's because I sometimes leave a claimed message in the queue for hours (or a day) while I consider it or ask another moderator about it. If the member meanwhile decides to withdraw the message I'd like to know about that, and not have them prevented from making the request.

Shal

JohnF,

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message

that's > pending approval?

I like that, if it is kept minimal, like the text box for entering a reason for an edit.

If the idea of treating a Deletion request like a claim is taken up then the note can appear as a tool-tip on the badge in the list, and in the red banner warning to a moderator who opens the message.

Shal

J,

Someone (or someones, until Shal's "claimed" feature is implemented,
if it is) may be hard at work moderating the message and then it can
disappear out from under them.

If you mean "hard at work writing a rejection note" that's the situation I was addressing recently (#24214); editing a message already claims it.

-----

What if instead of actually deleting the message, the member's Delete request operates more like a kind of claim. Approval and Rejection by email would be blocked, and the web Pending list would display a badge indication the member's Deletion request.

If a moderator includes the message in an Action from the list (except Delete), a red-banner could report the Deletion Request (and update the list, which might be showing a stale copy from before the member clicked Delete).

Similarly if the member opens the message from the list: a red banner message indicating the Deletion request. Or if the moderator clicks on any of the buttons (again, except Delete) the red banner to indicate the Deletion request.

As with a moderator claim, I'd let the moderator override the Deletion Request after the red banner has been shown once. Not sure why a mod might do that, but I'm sure someone will find it useful.

If no moderator takes care of the Deletion requested message via the web, it should time out and auto-delete, similar to the case with any pending message that isn't approved or rejected.

Shal

I would love to be able to permanently hide the ID column, which I don't use in my database table of chorus members.

If the ID column is hidden, would tables still be sorted by ID number by default? When I add a new member to my table, they get assigned the next sequential ID number. By default, the table is sorted by ID number, so new members appear at the end. However, I prefer to sort my table by the Last Name column, and whenever I add new members, I have to click the Last Name column to see all the members in alphabetical order by last name. Would it be possible to designate a default column to sort by if the ID column is hidden?

- Nina

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", 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/munge

"p=" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC#DNS_record

Best,

Glenn

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