The owner sees the pop-up stating a message is waiting for moderation even if moderators are defined separately

[tmclaren]

6.2.68

Installation method

Cent7, mariadb, postfix, rpm

Expected behavior

The left menu should reflect a message is waiting for moderation (Moderate > Message (N)).

Actual behavior

The web UI reflects a popup window stating a message is awaiting moderation but the left menu is blank and does NOT reflect a Message is awaiting moderation. I also noticed the 'Message (0)' is missing after one changes the 'who can send message' to a moderated scenari. See the attached screen shots.

Steps to reproduce

1. create a new list, note the left menu reflects Moderate with three options (Messages, Subscriptions, Unsubscriptions)
2. change the list to a moderate 'who can send messages' scenario.
3. send an email to the new list address
4. log into web ui, goto the list home page and a popup display stating there is a message awaiting moderation.
5. click on the Moderate option in the left menu. The left menu only displays (Subscriptions, Unsubscriptions) and the Messages option is missing.

Additional information

The functionality of a Moderated works as designed but the Web UI does not.

This image shows the Moderate > Message () UI in left menu.

---

This image shows the Moderate > Message UI is missing from the left menu. The 'who can send message' scenari is "Private, moderate for non subscribers.

---- scenario -----
title.gettext Private, moderated for non subscribers

is_subscriber([listname],[sender]) smtp,dkim,md5,smime -> do_it
is_editor([listname],[sender]) smtp,dkim,md5,smime -> do_it
true() smtp,dkim,md5,smime -> editorkey

[ikedas]

Hi @tmclaren ,

If the moderator is designated separately from the owner (i.e. the second image), moderation of the messages is not the owner's job. Otherwise (i.e. the first image), the owner doubles as moderator. It looks making sense for me that "Message" link is not shown in the second image.

[tmclaren]

The display is inconsistent since the owner is the 'default' moderator if no moderators are defined. When a moderator is defined the owner still sees the inline pop-up dialog box stating a message is waiting for moderation. However, the left Moderate > messages is missing. Since the owner is still authorized to moderate a message via the pop-up link I recommend the Moderate > message link also get displayed to keep the UX consistent between owners and moderators.

Attached is a screen shot of what a privileged owner sees when they go to their list's home page. They get a pop-up but no Moderate > message in left menu.

[ikedas]

I see. I understand that the owner who does not double moderator should not see the pop-up about "message(s) awiting moderation", as they does not see about such messages in the side menu. Do you agree?

[EDIT] FYI "Roles and privileges"

[tmclaren]

Since the owner is responsible for the list, they should have access rights and privileges for all aspects of the mail list. Ultimately, the owner is the moderator when no moderators are defined. Looking at it from a Prof / TA (teaching assistants) perspective, the Prof (privileged owner) will check on the TA's (moderators) to make sure they are moderating email from the class list so they need to be able to see the moderation events even though they assigned TAs to do the review the inbound email. This is especially true during semester breaks, when TAs are off and the Prof takes moderation responsibility; they need to be able to see the events in order to moderate the inbound email without removing the TAs from the moderator list.

[ikedas]

Since the owner is responsible for the list, they should have access rights and privileges for all aspects of the mail list. Ultimately, the owner is the moderator when no moderators are defined.

I agree. But, in fact ---

1. Only (privileged) owners can designate the moderators. In other words, the owner can delegate moderator privileges to the other user(s).
2. Moreover, owner can disignate themselves as the moderator. In othere words, the owner can exercise the moderator's privileges whenever they like.
3. The third case is when there are no moderators. In this case, the owner literally has moderator privileges.

Looking at it from a Prof / TA (teaching assistants) perspective, the Prof (privileged owner) will check on the TA's (moderators) to make sure they are moderating email from the class list so they need to be able to see the moderation events even though they assigned TAs to do the review the inbound email. This is especially true during semester breaks, when TAs are off and the Prof takes moderation responsibility; they need to be able to see the events in order to moderate the inbound email without removing the TAs from the moderator list.

According to my description above, I think prof may designate TAs (case 1.), and also designate prof by their own (case 2.), as moderators.

In general, the possible configuration options the owner may want to adopt are:

• case1 only --- any owners are not moderators, and there are some moderators.
• both case 1 & 2 --- owners are also moderators, and there are some more moderators.
• case 3 --- all owners are also moderators.

I think your proposal does not address owners who need case 1 only.

[tmclaren]

1. I agree with you that only the 'privileged' owner should be able to change the list configuration as it is currently designed. Where I disagree is blocking the privileged owner from seeing messages waiting for moderation if they defined other moderators. The privileged owner should have access for check and balance purposes to verify the moderators are efficiently moderating, else inbound messages could hit a black hole and never get moderated. 2. I agree this is a reasonable workaround to this bug. 3. Yep, current design. Address as you see fit. We will add a caveat to our doc about this feature.

…

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 7:47 PM IKEDA Soji ***@***.***> wrote: Since the owner is responsible for the list, they should have access rights and privileges for all aspects of the mail list. Ultimately, the owner is the moderator when no moderators are defined. I agree. But, in fact --- 1. Only (privileged) owners can designate the moderators. In other words, the owner can delegate moderator privileges to the other user(s). 2. Moreover, owner can disignate *themselves* as the moderator. In othere words, the owner can exercise the moderator's privileges whenever they like. 3. The third case is when there are no moderators. In this case, the owner literally has moderator privileges. Looking at it from a Prof / TA (teaching assistants) perspective, the Prof (privileged owner) will check on the TA's (moderators) to make sure they are moderating email from the class list so they need to be able to see the moderation events even though they assigned TAs to do the review the inbound email. This is especially true during semester breaks, when TAs are off and the Prof takes moderation responsibility; they need to be able to see the events in order to moderate the inbound email without removing the TAs from the moderator list. According to my description above, I think prof may designate TAs (case 1.), and also designate prof by their own (case 2.), as moderators. In general, the possible configuration options the owner may want to adopt are: - case1 only --- any owners are *not* moderators, and there are some moderators. - both case 1 & 2 --- owners are also moderators, and there are some more moderators. - case 3 --- all owners are also moderators. I think your proposal does not address owners who need case 1 only. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1406 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAXO2KX4RH62TTPG44X2HLLVM2XLBANCNFSM5XBOJKHQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>