I'm curious, did either one of these options ever get implemented?   I am running into the same DMARC issues others have mentioned and having these two settings available would seem to be very useful.

Thanks,

-Dj

I suggest that the existing "Set Moderator Privileges" flag should not allow a Moderator to edit the Role field. Promoting/demoting people to/from Moderator or Owner strikes me as an Owner function.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bruce

When someone leaves a group, their photo content is orphaned, and their name is not displayed next to the photo. This is fine, but leads to some confusion when a group Owner/Moderator subsequently goes to the photo edit page and instead of an empty field, sees the Owner pre-populated with the first entry in the pull-down menu.

If the "current" owner is not in the group, I'd prefer that this box contain something like "-- none selected --". In addition, I'd prefer that the pick-list be sorted alphabetically or in some more logical fashion than what is currently used, which appears to be inverse by join date.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bruce

Banning activity and the banned members list show the member under their User Name in the first column, but removal and the past members list show the Display Name there. You can see that in this removed/banned member's activity log, gleaned from the banned members list (this will be accessible only to Mark):
https://groups.io/g/Feline_Smallcell_Lymphoma/activity?p=Created,sub&subid=7710274

The second from the top line says that I removed X, but the top line says that I banned Y. Which is not big deal, because the email address is the same, and these are consecutive in the log. However, when I looked a few days later for the member in the past members list, I was looking for the wrong name and thought at first that the member did not appear there (I had to search for the email address). Possibly, once a member is removed, the Display Name is no longer accessible? That somehow doesn't seem right. It seems like it should be available in the history.

(BTW note the NMM3 badge in the Banned List record, whereas the history shows the member had some messages approved. But that's for the other topic.)
--
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 monthly Calendar event's time shifted to starting an hour earlier. I updated it for "All Events", which worked for the current and future months.

The unexpected consequence, which I believe is a bug, is that it deleted the event in all previous months, except the one month where the event started at a different time; however it did not preserve the past instances of the event when the Location had changed, but not the time.

This is not horrible, but it does destroy the historic value of the Calendar.

I have a small group of members in a group that want to receive email messages for new topics in real time but not the subsequent replies for a group that is set to reply to group.
Setting the group to reply to the original sender instead of the group would upset the majority of the rest of the users who like all replies.

Can we have a new Email Delivery type for this? "New Topics only" ??
 
Thanks for looking.

It would be really useful to be able to set a default visibility on database columns.
Perhaps the column width could accept -1 to make the column invisible?

We have a use case where we want to store a HTML page, but when you view the rows it looks a mess, as the entire HTML page is being displayed. Being able to make this column invisible in the row by row list of entries, and it's only viewable when you click on the row to view the individual record would be great.

I know you can scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the column name to switch it off, but the setting doesn't persist and you can;t set this by default when creating the database.

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:49 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

you also needed four in a row,

Meaning, four in a row of the "one bounce within every consecutive four days"
 
--
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 Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:44 PM, JediPirx wrote:

The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days

The bounce days don't have to be consecutive. They just have to satisfy the conditions I mentioned. But yeah, that's basically the reason. The bounces were too spread out. You'd get a couple that satisfied "at least one bounce within every consecutive four days," but you also needed four in a row, and you never got four in a row so it would go back to square one and start recounting.
 
--
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

Thank you for the explanation. The dates of the bouncing events
were spread out over months, not consecutive days so conditions
were not met, as you have stated.

Stan/jp

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Subject : Re : [beta] A 554 Bounce code not recognized as
bouncing on first occurrence #bug #fixed
Date : Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:51:52 -0800
From : J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com>
To : main@beta.groups.io

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 08:48 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address?

The reason I ask is that if you ban by entering the email address, a new member record for the banned account is created (as I understand it), regardless of whether or not the email address was already a member of the group. My guess is that that's the cause of the NMM3.
 
--
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

Actually I have a couple that are not NMM. However, all (or nearly all) of the NMM ones did not have that status when banned. One clue is that they're all NMM(3). And all, or nearly all, of them posted at least one approved message. This can be easily checked from their member activity log.
--
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 Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 08:15 PM, Duane wrote:

On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned.

In my group they've all become NMM. Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address? 
 
--
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 Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 09:02 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM.

I'm not seeing that on all of them. On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned.

Duane

Mark,

Not only is it still not working, but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM. This is correct for email addresses that were banned without having joined the group, but is not correct for most others.
--
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 Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 01:36 PM, Charles Roberts wrote:

NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.

I think there's a separate thread for that. 
 
--
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