new feature -- don't log eaten messages for hidden addresses

[josh]

I can't find the post, but someone suggested not logging messages that are sent to hidden addresses to the eaten message log.

This is a great idea, I think, and I implemented it -- currently, it's only activated by a feature setting that isn't accessible from the GUI.

What would be better - to turn on the feature for everyone, and document it (represents a change to previously established behavior) or expose the feature setting and let users turn it on and off (requires some explanation that may be tricky)?

[SysKoll]

Josh,

Let users turn it on and off. Set it up so that it has the current behavior by default. If you think it'll save CPU, you might want to recommand to turn off logging for hidden addresses.

Note that for the UI, the "eaten message log" radio-button would now have 3 choices:

Code: Select all

Logging of  eaten messages:
(o) Off    (o) Sent to non-hidden address only    (X) All eaten messages


As for explanations, don't worry, we'll come up with something. Here is a first-pass example (feel free to wordsmith).

Feature name: "Log of eaten messages "
Explanation: "By default,we log all eaten messages (we keep track of the last few only). If you choose thie option "Sent to non-hidden address only", only eaten messages sent to non-hidden addresses will be logged. The idea is that when you hide a heavily spammed address that you don't use anymore, you don't want to hear about eaten spam sent to it."

[vsp]

Actually, there is another problem here. I have watchwords turned on and SG denied two addresses that spammers tried to create for me (which seems to be a trend now). The logging feature shows me 3 emails that were sent to this address - which wasn't even created and doesn't show up under my hidden addresses.

Should SG be showing these emails in the eaten message log?

I can't find the post, but someone suggested not logging messages that are sent to hidden addresses to the eaten message log.

[jbs]

I can't find the post, but someone suggested not logging messages that are sent to hidden addresses to the eaten message log.

This is a great idea, I think, and I implemented it -- currently, it's only activated by a feature setting that isn't accessible from the GUI.

What would be better - to turn on the feature for everyone, and document it (represents a change to previously established behavior) or expose the feature setting and let users turn it on and off (requires some explanation that may be tricky)?

Josh-

I think I was the one who asked about that, but it might have been in an email cause I can't find the post either . . .

In any case, I logged on today to try and find it and see what reaction there might have been, and lo and behold I found your post that you implemented the feature! Terrific! I've enabled it in my settings and am looking forward to a much more useful eaten message log. Thanks!!

Just because this thread ended back in March '04 I'll mention here that this feature is now enabled as a radio button in advanced mode. Right where you enter your preference for an eaten message log, you can also indicate that you only want non-hidden addresses logged. Beautiful!

--Jason

P.S. Is there a way to show ONLY my hidden addresses? (i.e. the inverse of my standard list?) As far as I can tell the only way to determine which you've hidden is to view the whole list and the grayed ones are hidden. Is that right?

[jbs]

Hmmm . . . I turned this on yesterday afternoon, but this morning I had 2 new messages in my eaten log which were sent to a hidden address:


My settings are correct:


And I confirmed that the address is in fact hidden. Any idea why they might still be getting logged?

And these messages are definitely not just old messages in the log from before I enabled DoNotLogHidden.

--Jason

[josh]

maybe it's a bug? I'll have a look.

[jbs]

maybe it's a bug? I'll have a look.

Sent myself a few test emails tonight (from non-trusted addresses of course) and it now seems to be behaving as expected. New emails deleted en route to non-hidden addresses are showing up in the log, and those to hidden addresses, while showing in the deleted count for that address (as they should) are not showing up in the log.

Terrific feature!!

--Jason

I just sent myself 3 separate emails to just username@xoxy.net which all show up in the deleted log (again as they should) but has the effect of sort of "purging" the log as displayed. Now I can keep an eye on it as a last check to make sure I don't let any active SG addresses expire. I've never found it so useful before because it was always filled with emails to a known spamtrap -- I like the log feature MUCH better now!! Thanks, Josh!!