Date   

moderated Message to owner didn't show up under member's "Owner Messages" tab #bug

Peter Cook
 

My premium group requires prospective subscribers to reply to a Pending Subscription member notice. These replies go to the owner address.

Today, for the first time, a new member's response did not show up under their "Owner Messages" tab. Has something changed that would cause this?

Thanks!
Pete


moderated Re: Unable to set web notifications in Firefox mobile #bug

 

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 8:53 AM Andy Wedge <andy_wedge@...> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 05:21 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:
I can no longer set notifications on Firefox mobile on my Android phone.
Trying to give this a nudge. I cannot set notifications on Chrome mobile either now.

I am now in possession of an Android phone, so I can debug this... and I cannot reproduce this. On both mobile Chrome and Firefox, I was able to enable notifications, which were then delivered as they should be. Is there any additional information you can provide to help me figure out the problem?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

Hi All,

I've added a comma before the 'via' in activity logs. Also, for all new log entries for being removed for spam, they will be listed as 'via system'.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: formatting an indented line issue [no can do] #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:59 PM, KWKloeber wrote:
When one indents a line (or lines) one cannot outdent (or for that matter further indent) a line or lines that follows the indented pp. 
Groups.io uses the TinyMCE html editor ( https://www.tiny.cloud/tinymce/ ). 

If a bug exists, such info can be passed along to the vendor, but I doubt Mark will be fixing it himself.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: formatting an indented line issue [no can do] #bug

 

One more observation. There are four buttons to control ordered and unordered lists. Were you using the style selection buttons (first row on the editing toolbar) or just the Indent / outdent buttons on the second row? Also, you mentioned <p> and </p> tags -- I don't usually see those in messages composed at this web site. No <p> tags appear in this message, for instance. Did you maybe copy and paste them from somewhere else? Could that be gumming up the works?
--
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main    https://davidcbryant.net


moderated Re: formatting an indented line issue [no can do] #bug

 

I ran a little test, and it seems to work OK with a bulleted list.

This is a test.
  • Is there really a bug?
    • Maybe so.
  • Then again, maybe not. It seems to be working for me.
    • Increase indent.
  • Decrease indent.
Get rid of indent altogether.

This is another test, using numbers this time.
  1. Is there really a bug?
    1. Not that I can see yet. Since I'm constructing an outline, I really should use a letter, and not a number here.
    2. Let's add another line to the outline. Oh, yeah. Maybe there is a bug.
  2. Then again, it seems to be working for me.
    1. Increase indent. I had to select "lower case alpha" again to get it right, but that's a minor inconvenience.
  3. Decrease indent.
Get rid of indents altogether.

I don't know about that "bug". It seems to be working for me. Even the html code is nicely formatted in the <ul><li></li></ul> section. Where there are no lists, the code is sort of jumbled up. But the lists have lots of white space, making them easier to read.
--
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main    https://davidcbryant.net


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 03:21 PM, Andy wrote:
a better solution is to use correct sentences
I don't believe they're intended to be sentences, just log entries giving basic information, which I believe they do.

Duane


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

J, this is what you wrote:

    "I don’t think we’re aiming for great literature here."

Your words, not mine.  And then:

    "It's a log entry. It's not literature."

Again, those were your words, not mine.  I never asked for great literature.  I don't want great literature.  I didn't ask for great literature.

    "If people want correct sentences, one solution is to get rid of sentences and just use log-speak."

In my opinion, a better solution is to use correct sentences, ones that correctly convey what happened.

Andy


moderated formatting an indented line issue [no can do] #bug

KWKloeber
 

When one indents a line (or lines) one cannot outdent (or for that matter further indent) a line or lines that follows the indented pp. 

Lines 2,3,4 below were indented after typing them.
One cannot subsequently outdent #2 or indent #3 (or any other lines subsequently typed,) no matter how many CRs that one inserts between the various lines of the sequence below.
 
One needs to go into and edit markup language in order to be able to separate line #3 from the paragraph above it (and the same for line #4.).

1) this is a test of the emergency broadcast system.

2) this line was indented line.

3) this line wants to be non-indented, but cannot be formatted as such (no matter what, it hangs onto the pp above it.)

4) this line wants to be indented twice, but cannot be formatted separately from the two lines above (no matter what, it too, hangs onto the pp above it.)


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:43 PM, Andy wrote:
I'm not going to weed through the activity log looking for every possible example of syntax errors that are similar to the one I noticed.
It's almost all of them and many of us have noticed this for years. If people want correct sentences, one solution is to get rid of sentences and just use log-speak. And you DID accuse me of wanting the log entries to be classical literature.

I'm done here.
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

J wrote:

    "You're the one who wants it to be literature, classical or otherwise."

I never said that.

I want the log entries to make sense.  They don't.

    " I keep saying it's not literature and it shouldn't be."

Fine -- so why keep bringing up literature?  I don't want classical literature either.  I want sentences that make sense.  That's what sentences are for; they are supposed to convey information.  They should convey information correctly, and when they don't, it's a problem.

    "It does not matter. What matters is that you can't fix just this particular entry."

Mark Fletcher can fix whatever he wants!  I brought up just this particular entry because it was the one **I** noticed.  I didn't say that this is the only one to be fixed, and that the others should remain incorrect.  Why do you imply that?

    "You would have to go through and create individually customized syntax for each and every log entry with the issue or the potential issue."

Hey, man, this was a suggestion!  A SUGGESTION, man.

#suggestion -- "For suggestions for improvements to the service"

As a suggestion, Mark can use it, or not use it.  I did not order Mark to change anything, and I'm not going to weed through the activity log looking for every possible example of syntax errors that are similar to the one I noticed.

    "It's a log entry! It's a who, what, when, and how: the member, the action, the tie, and how (email or web)."

Except that it's a jumbled mix of those things.  If the log entry was: "RobertPerson was spam and removed @outlook.com as #129643 email via message", would you know what it means?  I wouldn't.  I'm thrilled for you that your magical parsing skills are so advanced, but for the rest of us humans, the entry in the log needs to make sense and convey what happened.  Currently it says that someone was removed via email, which is not what happened.

If Mark changes anything in the log entries (add uppercase, commas, or dashes), why not change it to be syntactically correct so that it conveys the right information?  Why mess with some of it but not mess with what was wrong about it?

Andy


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 


Ths user did the triggering action 


The root cause of confusion is that the Log combines two actions into one entry.  One can attempt to "figure it out" or justify it combining them, but that's the truth.  There are simply and unequivocably TWO actions, not ONE.  No more, no fewer.  If the Log simply reflected the accurate sequence of steps, there would be no confusion (e.g., using JCatz e.g. log-speak:)

[username] action: Reported msg #nnnnn as SPAMtime: [timestamp[via email]

[username] action: Removed for reporting msg #nnnnm as spam time: [timestamp] [via system]

I agree:

- mea culpa. There’s no point parse this into a custom entry for each and every type logged action - that’s unreasonable and inappropriate (I didn’t realize initially that the [via xxxxx] was merely appended.)
- it should be @ the end for ease of understanding/scanning log entries. 
log-speak is very appropriate (as one alternative.)
- the modified entry example surely serves its purpose well.

However:

- the Log *should* be accurate and list ALL actions - by user email, by user web, AND by the system. 
- use Log-Speak, not try to construct full sentences (which contributed to this confusion) because one fitz-all doesn’t ever, ever fit all (the thread *proves* that.) 
- the automated spam mechanism is dumb.  If a user validly reports a “valid spam", who gets *punished*?  The originator of the spammed message or the innocent who reported the offender?
 
The member doesn’t want to be removed from his/her group, s/he merely wants unwanted (potentially nefarious) messages to stop coming to his/her inbox.  Imagine the confusion generated and directed at octogenarians and nonagenarians who can barely hang on to the concept of the web and email and messages and spam and junk folders and contact lists.  Why are we trying to make it even more confusing to them? 
 
- “The system *should* send an email to the reporting, e.g.:

You reported a message posted by <mmm> [append other identifying info as appropriate] as SPAM.  
* Click this link if you want to be muted from receiving future messages posted by <mmm>. * 
* Click this link to report <mmm> for posting spam. *  
* If you reported that message as Spam in error, click this link for tips how to avoid this happening in the future.*
(obviously, the prose is subject to whatever appropriate tuning)

- The current auto-mechanism accomplishes zero to prevent the same “valid spams" from occurring again and again from the same offender.  
I’ve been thru this with recurring unwanted (seemed to be nefarious) messages from offenders — the offending messages/offender had to be addressed manually by reporting them to @support. 
- i.e., the system misses the mark by a wide mile as to appropriate handling of spam messages, spammers, and unintended spam reporting.

Just my 0.02


moderated Unable to delete pending message claimed by another Moderator #bug

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

I have a pending message on one subgroup (clams@tvam.groups.io) that was initially claimed by my co-owner. When I try to delete it via the website, clicking the Yes button on the confirmation prompt does nothing. No error message is shown and nothing is recorded in the Activity Log.

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: Expire invitations after 14 days #suggestion

 

Thanks Shal,

Yes, Bruce pointed this out to me. I didn't know it worked like that. Would it
not be better if it did not have that function, but simply required an email
reply? The recipient must already be using an email client to read the
invitation, so simply replying to it would accept the invitation but nothing
else. That would, I think, remove the need for any expiry date.

Jim

On 18 Apr 2021 at 23:04, Shal Farley wrote:

Jim,

> I don't see how it can give access to his/her account or to the system
> to anyone else. It isn't like a login link, which could do that.

The invitation email contains a link "accept the invitation" which IS
effectively a login link. That is the problem that was reported, and
which precipitated the shorter lifetime for the link.

While attempting to ask a question about invitations an invitee posted
the text of a received invitation, including that link, on a public
forum. I tested it, and it did indeed log me in to the invitee's
account. I was able then to access the content of a private, restricted
group of which the invitee happened to be a member (and I not).

Shal






moderated Re: Expire invitations after 14 days #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
The invitation email contains a link "accept the invitation" which IS
effectively a login link. That is the problem that was reported,  ...
I noticed a similar security problem when my group first migrated to groups.io in 2019. I had set up a small task force to evaluate Mark's software before bringing all 1,000 members over from yahoo.com. Anyway, there's a footer at the end of every message distributed to my group:

-=-=-
Group Owner: main+owner@t-vog.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main/leave/[redacted]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 
During the exploratory period I noticed that people were posting replies to messages and quoting everything in the original message, including this "unsubscribe" link. This of course meant that any member in the group could unsubscribe the careless poster, if he wanted to, and knew how.

I believe I've educated my group members well enough that this never happens any more. At least, I haven't seen it in over a year. But careless people can definitely cause problems with "encrypted" links. Those ought not fall into the wrong hands. And it might make sense to strip them out of incoming messages from groups.io members. I told everybody this can only happen if you reply by email, and encouraged everybody to post their messages from the web site. But people are lazy, and sometimes careless. There's no way to "fix" that.
--
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main    https://davidcbryant.net


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:36 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam
typo - marking the message as spam
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

Here's a suggestion besides the commas or the dash or the upper-casing. It seems to be the sentence format that's bothering some of you. So do away with that and don't even try to make the entry into a sentence. Just write something like this -

user: [user name] action: [user action] time: [timestamp] result: [e.g., was removed] [via email or web]

You could put the via email or via web abter the timestamp if that helps some of you. I myself would still keep it at the end to create shorter reading.
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:30 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
The user did not remove him/herself
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam), and that is always the case in these log entries. The log entry always refers to the user's originating action.
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:56 AM, Andy wrote:
It really does not matter to me that you want to treat the Activity log as if it might be classical literature.  I do not. 
You're the one who wants it to be literature, classical or otherwise. I keep saying it's not literature and it shouldn't be. Read my posts. It's a simple log, and as such, it should be allowed to speak log-speak as long as its syntax is made clear in some form, be that documention, Duane's commas, or other..

sure enough it applies to many others in addition, and surely the fact that I noticed it for only one case does not matter, does it?
It does not matter. What matters is that you can't fix just this particular entry. You would have to go through and create individually customized syntax for each and every log entry with the issue or the potential issue. It's a log entry! It's a who, what, when, and how: the member, the action, the tie, and how (email or web). Keep it that way. Clarify it by upper-casing the how, if you like, or by separating the how to make parsing easier. But don't mess with 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


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 


t’s completely clear that the tag “via email” or “ via web” refers to the user’s, not the system’s, action.

Not true.. 
The user did not remove him/herself.    The user took no action in the removal, were it via the web or via email. 
If the user was the one taking the action then the user would have chosen "don't remove me".  LOL!

Not seeking perfect literature  HOWEVER following the basic rules of technical writing (which is what this is, not literature,) always reveals the fallacies and inaccuracies in the prose versus the intended (accurate) meaning.  The log entries and the actual intended meaning (my last post) are NOT equivalent.
The log should differentiate between USER (member) actions and SYSTEM actions over which the USER has no control and no input.

If the intention is that log entries be accurate, there would be three actions listed. If Mark doesn't want the log entries accurate then he can do whatever he wants to and it doesn't really matter.  Hey, why not make everything in the log or in the documentation inaccurate?  Who cares, right?  We'll just interpret it however we care to because "we know what he really means."

1) <emailaddress> reported message #nnnn as spam {email}*
2) <email address> removed and notified for reporting message #nnnn as spam {system}*
3) <email address> resumed membership {web}*

No ambiguities, no incorrect entries, no muss, no fuss, no drips, no runs, no errors.

* Add "{via" if you care to, but it's nothing more than unnecessary fluff.


1481 - 1500 of 30420