The user has no access to their pending message if sent via web. That’s my point. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours,

The answers are easy enough to find by looking at the web UI after a suitable delay where moderation is in force*. And if you posted by email then look in your Sent Items folder. :) In the group only

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

Michael, 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

JohnF, 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

J, 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

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?

Yeah, I would remove it. Have a blessed day! Steph

In my experience, people who are interested in adding a DMARC record for their domain start with setting one up with p=none. Then they go through and audit the reports on their domain. They see that