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 helpful.

What I would rather dearly appreciate is the ability to click directly to an id number from the activity log to see exactly what change has been made.

Jim

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:05 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

In particular I wouldn't want a moderator's claim to prevent a member from making a deletion request. That's because I sometimes leave a claimed message in the queue for hours (or a day) while I consider it or ask another moderator about it. If the member meanwhile decides to withdraw the message I'd like to know about that, and not have them prevented from making the request.

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 can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:48 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message

that's > pending approval?

I like that, if it is kept minimal, like the text box for entering a reason for an edit.

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, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:39 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

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.

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 more like a kind of claim.

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Whoever gets to the message first (sender or mod) stops the other from affecting it one way or the other, no matter what you call it. Calling it "claimed" by the sender works fine. However, I'm not sure about the logistics of blocking approval and rejection via email. It seems you still have the problem that the moderator may start working on the message, and only after finishing and attempting to send the approval or rejection do they find out that the member has "claimed" (i.e., deleted) the message. So unless I'm missing something, the basic problem still remains if the mod is working by 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

Michael,

If one Moderator/Owner currently starts to moderate a message, are all
other Moderators/Owner prevented from doing so?

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 by web (they can override the "claim" warning by acting on the message despite it).

That is not (currently) true of Rejecting a message (which opens an edit box for the rejection notice.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/24214

It is also not true of simply opening the message from the list to look at it and maybe choose a button.

If more than one Moderator/Owner currently is moderating at the same
time, does who ever finishes first prevail?

Except for the Edit action, whoever finishes first prevails.

That is, if a bunch of moderators open a message to look at it, and one approves it then the rest (if they try to take an action) get a warning that the message no longer exists.

If there currently is a 'lock' that prevents more than one
Moderator/Owner from interacting with a Pending Message, could it not
also be used to prevent any second party (whether Sender or
Moderator/Owner) from doing so.

I think a similar "lock" could be used, but I'd want it to be distinct in both appearance (so that mods would know whether it is a moderator claim or a sender's deletion request) and because I would want slightly different behavior.

In particular I wouldn't want a moderator's claim to prevent a member from making a deletion request. That's because I sometimes leave a claimed message in the queue for hours (or a day) while I consider it or ask another moderator about it. If the member meanwhile decides to withdraw the message I'd like to know about that, and not have them prevented from making the request.

Shal

JohnF,

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message

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 the note can appear as a tool-tip on the badge in the list, and in the red banner warning to a moderator who opens the message.

Shal

J,

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.

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 message, the member's Delete request operates more like a kind of claim. Approval and Rejection by email would be blocked, and the web Pending list would display a badge indication the member's Deletion request.

If a moderator includes the message in an Action from the list (except Delete), a red-banner could report the Deletion Request (and update the list, which might be showing a stale copy from before the member clicked Delete).

Similarly if the member opens the message from the list: a red banner message indicating the Deletion request. Or if the moderator clicks on any of the buttons (again, except Delete) the red banner to indicate the Deletion request.

As with a moderator claim, I'd let the moderator override the Deletion Request after the red banner has been shown once. Not sure why a mod might do that, but I'm sure someone will find it useful.

If no moderator takes care of the Deletion requested message via the web, it should time out and auto-delete, similar to the case with any pending message that isn't approved or rejected.

Shal

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? When I add a new member to my table, they get assigned the next sequential ID number. By default, the table is sorted by ID number, so new members appear at the end. However, I prefer to sort my table by the Last Name column, and whenever I add new members, I have to click the Last Name column to see all the members in alphabetical order by last name. Would it be possible to designate a default column to sort by if the ID column is hidden?

- Nina

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:22 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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. 

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

It's hard to have objections.... as I don't know what is talked about.
Does anyone care to explain/translate? 

"munge", 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/munge

"p=" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMARC#DNS_record

Best,

Glenn

This would frustrate our users who receive software patches via the project's mailing list.

Git takes patch author information from e-mail headers. Right now we have git hooks in place on the server to prevent munged author information from reaching the repositories. Our maintainers have to fix author information before pushing code. Right now our maintainers only have to do that for a few senders. This change would mean fixing that information for every patch. 

It is not easy to automate fixing author information given the many unique workflows used by our maintainers. Having correct header information, when possible, is very desirable.
-- 
Michael Halstead

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 02:22 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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.

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

It's hard to have objections.... as I don't know what is talked about.
Does anyone care to explain/translate? "munge", "p=" ?

groetjes, Ronaldo

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 06:11 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

I'm thinking that maybe I should remove that row? Opinions?

An indexing method is most definitely required IMHO.
Haven't made any form of dbase or excel sheet without it. Sure on IOG there no 'programmable' reference but surely easier to instruct 'go to #23' than have to create them manually.
regards dave

It might be usable if the Database controlling person could
specify the indexing interval at DB initiation and also
request reindex & interval at later times
--

Bob Bellizzi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 03:22 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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.

I'm objecting to this. This would munge From for everybody. It'd be disruptive, and for what? What's the sense? p=none means no rejection. People (including me) make DMARC records with p=none in the belief that some large receivers consider messages passing DMARC as less likely spam, but we don't want the DMARC disruption, so p=none is deliberate and permanent.

Please give examples of problems because of p=none.

--
Lena

Sorry to be a boring old programmer, but I’ve always found it useful to have an Id column in a database.

I find a record number useful, make it only visible to a moderator or make it so it can be turned on or off (shown or not shown). 


Bob