On Feb 19, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Bill Hazel <william.j.hazel@usa.net> wrote:

Add a way to cancel a message before it gets approved.

Posting via an online form (anywhere) typically fails to provide the option to receive a copy of one's 'sent' message.
I try to avoid posting online for that reason
A checkbox could offer that option.

A email notification would be sent to any Sender of a message (posted via email or online) that requires Moderation.
This notification would look similar to that sent to the Moderators/Owners that a message requires Moderation.
The Sender's notification would include a 'reply' or 'forward' option to delete the Pending message.

An online Pending Message feature for the Sender, similar to that of Moderators/Owners would be required.
The Sender's options would be to Edit or Delete the Pending Message.

If the message had already been approved, it would be too late for the Sender.
If a Moderator/Owner attempted to moderate a deleted Pending message, it would no longer exist.

Whether a Pending message had been Claimed or not would only affect where Moderators/Owners could moderate the message. (No change)

The Activity log would show whatever happened to the Pending message.

Dave,

Currently plain text versions of group mails do not contain the 'reply
to sender' option in the footer, only in the html version if it
exists.

The reason has to do with the fact that those are mailto links, and they necessarily include the text of the subject line. They'd be sizeable and quite ugly as URLs in plain text.

If this is to be implemented can we add 'reply to sender' to the
footers in these messages as well please.

Maybe call it "New message to sender" instead. That would be a mailto: link without the Subject parameter. Which would be more honest in a way, as mailto links can't create actual replies (can't invoke the mail interface's Reply function) in any case.

One limitation is that email interfaces vary in whether they will linkify (make clickable) a mailto: URL found in plain text; some do, some don't (whereas most will linkify an http(s): URL detected in plain text). So some of your members may still have to resort to copy/paste; but at least they would have a non-munged address to copy.

It might be better to just include the plain text of the sender's address in the footer, for easy copy/paste.

And then perhaps decouple this suggestion from the DMARC issue. That is, make it a stand-alone suggestion in its own topic.

Shal

Another thought. Currently plain text versions of group mails do not
contain the 'reply to sender' option in the footer, only in the html
version if it exists. If this is to be implemented can we add 'reply to
sender' to the footers in these messages as well please.

Dave

On 20 Feb 2020 at 6:49, Dave Sergeant wrote:

My objection would be that it makes it more difficult for people to
reply directly to sender from email. OK, I know there is a 'reply to
sender' at the bottom of the mail but many don't see this. I constantly
get queries as to why a person's email bounces but it is clearly there
in the 'from' line, although munged and they have to edit it to the not
quite obvious correct one. I know how to do this, but many can't work it
out.

At the moment it is good that groups.io doesn't do it for everybody like
Yahoo did (with its slightly easier to d-munge version). I can see why
Mark has to do it but it is unfortunate it has to be extended.

http://davesergeant.com

My objection would be that it makes it more difficult for people to
reply directly to sender from email. OK, I know there is a 'reply to
sender' at the bottom of the mail but many don't see this. I constantly
get queries as to why a person's email bounces but it is clearly there
in the 'from' line, although munged and they have to edit it to the not
quite obvious correct one. I know how to do this, but many can't work
it out.

At the moment it is good that groups.io doesn't do it for everybody
like Yahoo did (with its slightly easier to d-munge version). I can see
why Mark has to do it but it is unfortunate it has to be extended.

Dave

On 19 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi All,

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. Recently,
several people have contacted support about this, and I think this
change makes things more straightforward.

Please let me know if you have any objections or questions.

Thanks,
Mark

http://davesergeant.com

Or maybe the can-of-worms-in-the-sky list.;)

--
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, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:59 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

Seems cleaner and easier for the poster of the message to just send a PM to the group owner address asking them to delete the pending message.

But (ain't there always at least one) how do you know which will be read first?  Catch-22.  After thinking on it a bit, I don't know if this is really worth pursuing much (of course, that's up to Mark.)  As it is now, the poster could attempt to notify the group mods to reject/delete it.  Failing that, the poster has 2 options, follow up with an oopsy report or just delete the message.  (As I mentioned before, I'd rather see an oopsy in hopes it may help someone else.)  There doesn't seem to be much, if any, damage done and I don't remember it happening all that often.  Maybe this can go on Mark's pie-in-the-sky list for when he runs out of things to do and the site is running perfectly. ;>)

Duane

Seems cleaner and easier for the poster of the message to just send a PM to the group owner address asking them to delete the pending message.
My two cents.
--
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

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message that's pending approval? It would only be seen by a moderator who is able to approve the pending message. Then the original author could note, "I found out the answer to my question, so this message doesn't have to be posted," and the moderator could decide to reject it to reduce clutter, or could approve it anyway if he/she thinks it would be helpful to others.

JohnF

Re messy: so to fix that, you'd have to do something like a "too late to delete" feature if a mod has already claimed the message. And that's assuming "claimed" even gets implemented. If it doesn't, things are even worse.
--
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

Pondering this further, I think what bothers me is the effect on moderators. 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. This just seems really messy.
--
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

Ok, that's somewhat convincing. :)
--
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, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

How would they do that?

The same mechanism that would allow one posted online to be deleted.  If it's already been approved, their 'sent' list would be empty.

Duane

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:36 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

there's no notification that their message will post when approved, no banner,  no nothing.

Now I'm thinking (as you may be too) that maybe there should be some such notification when members post via email. If that's added, and a copy of the message sent is also added, that would make things very consistent.

My gut feeling is still against adding the ability to delete, but I can't really justify it. Something just bothers me about 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

I'm re-posting this list as a suggestion since it didn't get elevated to that level during the changeover.

I've tried to keep the list as short as I could to provide functions that would enhance Database operation and use.

Suggestions for Databases Function:

1.       Setup Option in premium to initially open in List or Map mode.

2.       Setup Option in premium to allow owners/moderators, based on `1 above, to force DB to stay in List or Map mode permanently or be switchable between. 

3.       Setup option to hide Index/Record number

4.       In Premium/Enterprise groups, when searching, retain the current (List or Map) mode.

5.       Provide Reset/Resequence Index command

a.       with a “Set Index Increment” function  to allow spacing/insertion between records.

b.      Or with a preset “Increment of 10 to allow spacing/insertion.

6.       Provide “Insert Record Before/After Record #” function when Index Increment >1

7.       Retain column headings when scrolling.  Currently they disappear.

 

8.       Always go to List mode when importing tables or rows; then, when complete, return to default mode from setup.

--

Bob Bellizzi

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:34 PM, Duane wrote:

If the message hasn't been approved, the sender could go online and delete it.

How would they do that? If they sent it via email, there's no notification that their message will post when approved, no banner,  no nothing.
 
--
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, Feb 19, 2020 at 02:16 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

Adding the suggested feature decreases consistency (you can’t take back a sent email)

I don't think it necessarily would.  If the message hasn't been approved, the sender could go online and delete it.  Maybe that would be a limitation.

Duane

I’m all for the most consistency possible between posting via email vs posting via the web. Adding the suggested feature decreases consistency (you can’t take back a sent email) whereas my suggestion adds consistency (you’d have a record of what yoh sent whether you posted via email or via the web, as opposed to currently, where you have it only if post via 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 Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 01:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.

How so?  Wouldn't it be better to allow the sender to remove the message from the queue than to add clutter by needing to post a "my mistake" followup?  In some cases though, I do like having something like that posted for all to see when it might make something more clear to another user later.

Duane

I'm not sure I understand the middle part of this message, but I do get that the suggestion is for a way to delete a submitted pending message. I would disagree with that feature and think it would be superfluous.

What I do think would be very useful (and have suggested in the past) would be to send the member a record of the submitted message. When you post via email, you have a record of what you sent. But when you post via the web and the message is moderated, you have no record of it unless you explicitly make a copy for yourself. 
--
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