Pretty funny! :-)
--
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

A companion to this would be to display only the moderator notification options that correspond to a moderator's permissions. Currently (as previously discussed and rehashed here), all moderators can pick and choose which notifications they receive, regardless of their permissions. Going along with filtering the activity log according to permissions would be filtering the options displayed for each moderator's notifications. "notify when there's a pending message requiring approval" would be a notification option only if the moderator has message-approval permission, "notify when a member joins or leaves the group" would be an option only if the moderator has member-directory and/or membership approval permission, etc.
--
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

The suggestion is that only moderators with the corresponding permissions should see activity log entries. For example, if a moderator does not have invite permission, I don't want them seeing a log entry that another moderator invited someone; if a moderator does not have edit-archive or approve pending messages permission, I don't want them seeing the approval, rejection, or deletion of a pending message by another moderator; the same with approval or rejection of a pending member if they don't have that permission; etc.
--
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

A mental typo: I meant “overloading,” not “overlaying.”

--
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, May 5, 2020 at 11:03 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

I added a feature where you could report someone who had applied to your group that you thought was a spammer, would you use that feature?

Yes I would, but it might be of limited utility. Only very rarely do we get "suspect" applications, and they never respond to the Pending Subscription mesage. The last time that I am aware of was back in January when there was a small rash of applications from common IP addresses that was flagged up on GMF here. (The topic ran on for 202 messages!) As things stand few applications come from email addresses that just don't look right.

. Are there other tools I could provide to help weed these jerks out?

One idea that springs to mind is to add a function to the on - line moderation UI for Report as Spam. How easily the equivalent function could be provided for email moderation I won't pretend to know. Obviously that would be of no help for groups that run unmoderated. A further option could be to add Report as Spam to the "More" hamburger so that obvious spam could be reported by just one or two clicks; that might help those unmoderated groups. 

If I really wanted to go on a spammer hunt I would use the Activity log; on the group I moderate (which does not allow non - members to post) the spam is abundantly clear both from the sender's garbage email address and the supposed subject line, but of course there is no way of reporting it as spam from there, even assuming we go to look. I suspect that as this spam happens in sudden bursts and then stops for a while that it is being stopped by spam - killers running in the background. 

One thing that might help is for the applicants' IP addresses to appear on the web UI; I know it is sent in the email version but cross - referencing web UI and emails is a bit tedious. The downside to trying to add it to the web UI is that that page is already cramped when using a 4:3 display unit and adding IP addresses would only make that much worse. (See here for previous post about this!!)

Chris

On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 06:19 AM, Duane wrote:

maybe "Banned by system" would be a better process.

This could also be a category in the member dropdown.
 
--
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 Wed, May 6, 2020 at 03:30 PM, John Pearce wrote:

But waiting a week would defeat the purpose of reporting to groups.io

Chris Jones wrote:
Not necessarily, IMHO. Flagging up too soon might well result in so many false positives that it risks swamping Groups.io with potentially innocent applicants.

Chris, agreed.  I was thinking that a tool might help to identify someone as a spammer more than I could do myself.  I don't know what information a tool Mark is suggesting  might provide.  I found for example one person who applied on the web whose email address tracked to a cloud provider in Florida that is known for allowing spammers and hackers to use their service.  The application aged out.  At this time the only people I would report are people that make it onto the group and then spam.  This has only happened once.  Some guidance as to when to report someone along with the tool would be helpful.

John Pearce

There’s also this issue, which is sort of the converse? and may as well be brought up here: if someone renames a topic via email from subject X to subject Y, and a moderator then merges the two into X, which was the original, subject Y is still displayed when replying via the web.

--
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

[Mod note: Added #bug hashtag]

Oops, no tag.  Too early, not enough coffee?

Duane

It experimenting with a new (sub)group to replace a mailman list, I think
we have located a threading error.

If someone replies by email with the subject changed, then GIO seems to do
things sendibly - it starts a new topic and sends the email out without
any (old) threading history in the headers.

However, if someone replies on the web interface and changes the subject
line. GIO starts a new topic but the outgoing email has the threading
headers that links it to the old messages. So while the web display is
right, an email client that respects the threading headers will see it as a continuation of the thread.

I guess this could be called either way - when replying on the web
interface and changing the subject -
either
GIO should continue the topic rather than start a new one
or
GIO should take out the threading headers from the outgoing email

Others may disagree of course ...

Keep safe, Malcolm.

--
Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk>

[Mod note: Added #bug hashtag]

For image attachement it could be interesting to have eidtion option for reduce size.

When accounts are disabled by GIO management, as noted in a previous topic, it would be helpful if that were noted in the activity log of any groups where they are members.  As it is now, the record for that email address just disappears from the roster.  An entry of "Account disabled by system" should suffice.  I think it would also be a good idea, to prevent confusion, to remove those people from any groups they've joined instead of just hiding the information, so maybe "Banned by system" would be a better process.

Thanks,
Duane

I'm glad that part has been fixed! There is, of course, still the (major) issue with the confusion caused by the overlaying of the term "confirm," the welcome message going out to NC members, and making it so that all restricted groups (not just premium restricted groups) confirm their members upon approval.

Thanks!
--
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, May 5, 2020 at 07:14 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

Resent the confirmation email. It shows in the activity log but does not show in her email delivery history. So that's a definite bug, and probably just a logging bug.

This has now been fixed.

Thanks, Mark

Yes, fixed. Thanks!
--
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

In https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/31637 Shal Farley referred me to an old bug (https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/7558487#16479) where the solution was to add the List-Post: header.

So maybe List-Post: should not be included if the group is configured to omit all reply options other than the default (e.g. to Sender only).

-Jim

Thanks Mark!
Works for me and my new wiki.   Old wikis with lots of pages and internal links would probably appreciate an option to search-replace title links with ID links.
Thanks again. Impressed with responsiveness.  Well done!

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 09:42 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

I banned someone from a group today and was chagrined to find that after banning them, their clickable profile and email address suddenly appeared below and at the top of their messages.

This should be fixed now.

Thanks, Mark