On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 09:24 AM, Bart Fried wrote:

Subjects should be required. Especially in a group or forum

As they are. The suggestion in this thread has nothing to do with group messages. It is about messages going only to the owner/moderators of a group. Group members don't even receive such messages, so there's no issue with sending a subject-less email blast; and on top of that, messages to owners may come from non-group members so should not be subject to group restrictions or requirements - there's no such agreement or contract yet with the sender.

My group goes beyond the already existing groups.io requirement that group messages have subjects, and even requires that the subject contain the cat's name and other data. Messages coming from possible non-members with questions about the group, and going only to group owners, are a horse of a different hue and I would not want to bounce them if they simply lack a subject line.
 
--
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

One of my groups is starting to use the Files section for a 'library' of catalogs. Most are uploaded as either PDF files and occasionally Word Doc files. It would be very useful to be able to preview these files prior to downloading them. This is a function that is found in Google's suite of products and in many other sites on the Web. From what I can tell, it is a relatively common function. In its most extreme form of usefulness, the PDF files are automatically OCR'd.

I imagine that this would be useful for all groups.

Bart

Of course Subjects should be required. Especially in a group or forum ... otherwise how does one know if they are opening a Topcical or OFF TOPIC item? There are enough other time-sucks in the world. This is an easy one to fix.

Bart Fried

My Suggestion is to separate the  "View/Online" link into "View Thread" and "Reply online". I always have to generate an empty message whenever I wawnn to review the thread.

Regards
Georg Klein

Been writing some babysitting queries that interact with the API to get members and database rows.

While the API docs clearly say HTTP Basic Auth when using the token style of authentication, it never explains that the token goes in the username name field and nothing goes in the password field. Took some trial and error to figure that one out.

But why use Authorization: Basic when you are already set up for Authorization: Bearer?

So, we have a JWT that is already Base64 encoded (and signed). Without any modification, that token can be added to the request header as:

Authorization: Bearer <token>

Instead, we have to package the JWT up again and pass it as follows:

Authorization: Basic Base64.encode(<token> + ":")

Just wondering why the slightly unique approach over the more conventional (and less confusing) approach?

And, I can't really divine if the future is a cookie-only API, or if tokens will also be part of that future.

Thank you for the API, btw.

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 03:55 PM, Andy Wedge wrote:

After using the New Topic link a new topic window is shown but the Send and Discard buttons don't work properly.

And since posting this I found that it's the same after using the New Topic links in a Full Digest.

Andy

Hi,

I think it would be helpful to have the Home, Subscription, Messages and New Topic links shown at the bottom of the Daily Summary email also shown at the bottom of a Full Digest to provide a consistent style and quick access to key web pages.  If that's done, I would then question retaining the New Topic link at the bottom of each message in a Digest as the others primarily relate to the message above (except Top ^).

Andy

Hi Mark,

a Daily Summary contains Home, Subscription, Messages and New Topic links at the bottom. After using the New Topic link a new topic window is shown but the Send and Discard buttons don't work properly. The Discard button does nothing and the Send button just takes you back to the messages view.

Regards,
Andy

--
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 Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.

Divining intent is a perilous matter
When multiple plausible meanings exist.
Some people may just mean to clean up their chatter
But just by pure chance they make others quite pissed.

--
J

Are you riffing T.S. Eliot's The Naming of Cats? If so, I approve.

Best,

Glenn

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:26 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.

Divining intent is a perilous matter
When multiple plausible meanings exist.
Some people may just mean to clean up their chatter
But just by pure chance they make others quite pissed.
 
--
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

I think divining intent from semantics is a perilous business, in particular when there are multiple plausible intents.

Some people may intend to start a new thread by changing the subject line.
Some people may intend to just clean up automated reply/forward annotations.
Some people may intend to acknowledge that the subject of the conversation has mutated while preserving the chain to the earlier subject (the thread has forked).
Some people may intend to just add or remove a hashtag.

None of those are more right or more wrong than the others, just different use cases. Asserting that only one of them is what all writers have in mind strikes me as not very universal.

Best,

Glenn

This has been hashed and rehashed an rerehashed in the past and the decision was made to thread topics based on subject line as well, because sometimes they were not threading correctly otherwise. I think that was the right decision and it should stay as is. This is going off on a tangent .

--
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 Sat, May 23, 2020 at 05:05 PM, Malcolm Austen wrote:

Emails are (or should be) threaded on the basis of the threading headers,
not on the basis of the subject line.

I disagree. If you change the subjectline, it's your intention to create a new thread.

Also, I don't want to copy one of the worst parts of googlegroups:
if you send a reply to a digest about subject A, and then send a reply to the same digest about subject B, the second message is threaded as subject A, and sent with the subjectline A ..

groetjes/ĝis, Ronaldo

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 08:39 AM, Thomas Gruber wrote:

That‘s not a groups.io thing really,

My point was not that it's a groups.io thing. My point was that there may have been no relationship established yet, so it doesn't seem appropriate to me to slap them on the wrist ("please don't send emails without subjects") for not including a subject, or worse yet, bounce their 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

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 08:39 AM, Thomas Gruber wrote:

Or if you want to be really generous, a warning reply - like „please don‘t send emails without subject“

I think even that is too much if a relationship has not yet been established. People DO send blank emails to subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. It's not standard practice or in any way required that all emails have subject lines.
 
--
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