On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:36 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Also, I'm going from most space used to least, so you'll be near the end of the list. 

I'm seeing two log entries now where it says "Attachments up to message #xxx were deleted to free up space via system"

However, when I go to Admin>Upgrade, it still shows this group as 9% over quota (13% as attachments), and the file and photo upload buttons remain grayed out. I expected all attachments to be deleted to get me to 96%.

So somethin' still ain't right.

FYI,
Bruce

Thank you, Mark! I have verified that it is working correctly for me now.

Su

After reading the posts at GMF about many yahoo email addresses suddenly bouncing, I checked my largest group. I have about 100 bouncing, so I did a search to see how many were yahoo. That's when it got weird.

It shows that there are 60 such addresses, displayed on 3 pages of 20 each. However, pages 1, 2, and 3 show identical information, i.e. the same names, email addresses, etc. The only difference it it says "1-20 of 60" on the first page, "21-40 of 60" on the second, and "41-60 of 60" on the third.

Looking over the original bouncing list (before the search is applied) it does appear that there are around 60 yahoo addresses. It's just that they don't actually show up properly after the search. If I click on the member on the second or third page, it really does take me to the same member's record.

Thanks,
Su

I've seen some posts here about and replies (from Mark) that it was fixed by I have this problem when I post.

The fonts do not keep their size nor the text its alignment. The problem exists whether posted from email client (thunderbird) or group's UI.

Situation:
The Search function is different depending on which page your on.
Target:
A standardized Search interface across the platform.
Proposal:
I suggest that the initial Search function be:

• Standardized across all pages, with the search box located in the top right-hand corner
  
  • Less confusing for new users
• A drop-down menu with the different choices (See below for a quick and dirty sample)
  • There could be a whole conversation about what to include
  • Default could be with current page at top of list and/or the only source searched if nothing is picked, I'm not a coder so I have no idea what's involved with this.
    • List could be multiple choice with Control key but that would probably be labor intensive. 

I understand that depending on the source being searched that there are differences in how the information is displayed. I think I'd keep the Message search result options, especially if Messages were included in the search.

The bug is worse than I thought. With the sole exception of topics that were locked via a hashtag, the lock icon fails to appear in *any* search that returns a message or topic, not just a hashtag search.

If you search on a term that returns the topic, the topic does not appear locked. Yet if you're looking at the topic or message in the message list (not the result of a search), the lock icon does show up.

It's not for us to give priority to bugs, but this would be at the top of my list if I could make one. I am repeatedly trying to lock topics via some search, and the lock icon keeps failing to appear. and I keep locking them over and over again - until I get out from the search, look at the full message list, and see the  lock icon there.
--
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

Here is a refinement of the bug:
The lock icon does disappear in a hashtag search if the topic was locked by hand.
But it does not disappear if the topic was locked via some hashtag.
--
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 search reveals messages where the word is used in the subject or the body. Allow the option to search for key words in the subject only also.

If you lock a topic, and the topic has a hashtag, and then you click on that hashtag anywhere, the topic appears in the hashtag search but the lock icon does not appear. I just went through re-locking a bunch of topics that I thought I'd already locked, and it turned out that I HAD already locked them. It's just that when looking for them by clicking on any hashtag they have, the locked icon had disappeared.
--
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

Shal, I don't mean anything negative by this. I am just done with it, is all. I simply wanted to point out that it is not a simple thing. I am not interested in designing the fix. 
--
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

Shal,
You can design this to your heart's content. I'm fine with whatever is decided and am done with 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

J,

All depends what you mean by “nearly instantaneous.”

I explained exactly what I meant, in some detail.

And yes, in my case and in my group, and no doubt in others, there are
times when it is in no way instantaneous.

Would this work for you? In those cases where, upon reading the "Message Approval Needed" notice, you begin a non-instantaneous process (that is, you do something other than immediately accept or reject) you could step through to the Pending list on site and claim that message.

Or, maybe part of this suggestion (or a separate #suggestion) should be to add a "Claim this message" link to the Message Approval Needed notice, akin to the existing Reject and Delete links. That would cover the case of moderators who can't or don't want to go on site.

Now your process can proceed in a protected fashion. Which, I think, is what you have asked for - a means to avoid investing time in a response only to have the message disappear (be accepted/rejected by someone else) in the meantime.

You can’t wish the problem away.

No, but I can suggest means to minimize the problem (other than by investing the site with the clairvoyance to know that you're considering a message off line).

Shal

JohnF wrote:

How about a way to attach a note to the moderator for a message
that's pending approval?

I supported that idea and J wrote:

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?

I also agree with the notion of having a "sent" or "pending" folder on site where a member can access their own messages posted (via web or email) while still pending. I skimmed back through this topic because I thought someone had already suggested it, but if so I missed it - my apologies.

I'm leaning a bit more to the general case of "sent" as an on site way to provide the equivalent function of an email "sent" folder. But that's a rich enough suggestion in itself that it probably deserves its own #suggestion topic (and there may be that suggestion in beta's history already, I didn't search that out but it sounds familiar).

Shal

Shal,

All depends what you mean by “nearly instantaneous.” If it’s not “instantaneous enough,” you have a problem, and an ugly, messy one.

And yes, in my case and in my group, and no doubt in others, there are times when it is in no way instantaneous.

You can’t wish the problem away.

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

J,

*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.

Both accepting and rejecting by email are nearly instantaneous events: you click Reply or Forward and Send - there is no time spent in an edit session. Now you may have spent some time thinking about the message before taking action, but there's really no way to handle that: no signal from you to say "I'm thinking about this pending notice in my inbox".

So unless I'm missing something, the basic problem still remains if
the mod is working by email.

I really don't see it as a problem. But that may just be my style being different than yours.

If I approve or reject by email it is usually because the decision for that message was instantly obvious to me. When a message needs consideration I tend to click through to the site to deal with it. If I'm lucky I remember to claim it before beginning to compose a message to the member, another moderator, or a rejection notice. If the message needs some trimming, redaction, or a mod note that edit has to be done on site anyway (and is the one action that currently does claim a pending message).

Shal

.... and we are back again.

Daily summaries did not go out for the past 3 hours because the database query to get summary subscriptions was erroring out with an out of memory error from the database that indicated some kind of corruption on the database again. This was a different problem than the one I saw yesterday. Instead of just restarting the database, I restarted the entire machine this time. If this doesn't fix it, I will have to do something more serious. Again, it doesn't appear that there's any corruption or loss of data in the database; right now this appears to just be a machine issue.

Thanks, Mark

Something we do at work is to use database replication to form a chain of three database hosts: alpha-beta-gamma.  If something goes wrong with the alpha host, we simply take it offline, promote the beta to alpha (e.g., change DNS, undo the read-only status of the beta), promote gamma to beta and then debug the old alpha offline and/or just make a new gamma.

I realize that there is a cost involved to this that groups.io may or may not be able to sustain, but perhaps an alpha-beta model would work also.

Best,

Glenn

.... and we are back again.

Daily summaries did not go out for the past 3 hours because the database query to get summary subscriptions was erroring out with an out of memory error from the database that indicated some kind of corruption on the database again. This was a different problem than the one I saw yesterday. Instead of just restarting the database, I restarted the entire machine this time. If this doesn't fix it, I will have to do something more serious. Again, it doesn't appear that there's any corruption or loss of data in the database; right now this appears to just be a machine issue.

Thanks, Mark