Private Messaging system doesn't seem to work?

Announcements from the Management and assistance with forum software. New to FWF? Please consider introducing yourself
Post Reply
smihaila
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 May 2006 19:53

Private Messaging system doesn't seem to work?

Post by smihaila »

Hi,

I'm addressing this message to the forum's general admins or mods.

I've just tried to send a PM to another forum member but the message doesn't seem to get out of the "Outbox" folder. I would expect the msg to get sent instantly, unless some of the new forum's policies got changed?

Btw, I tried the same thing with the "administrator" as intended recipient, and the behavior is the same i.e. the Outbox folder is now showing 2 unsent messages.

Thank you.
User avatar
Peculiar_Investor
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 13271
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 14:52
Location: Calgary
Contact:

Re: Private Messaging system doesn't seem to work?

Post by Peculiar_Investor »

This question comes up periodically. The forum's software keeps PMs in your Outbox folder until the recipient reads the message. At that point the message moves to your Sent folder. The documentation on how it works can be found in Message Folders.

The confusion arises because most email programs operate differently, holding messages in Outbox until they've been transmitted to your ISPs email server, then moving them to your Sent folder.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki New editors wanted and welcomed, please help collaborate and improve the wiki.

Normal people… believe that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Engineers believe that if it ain’t broke, it doesn’t have enough features yet. – Scott Adams
smihaila
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: 15 May 2006 19:53

Re: Private Messaging system doesn't seem to work?

Post by smihaila »

Ah, interesting approach. I recall using this very same system long time ago (while it was FWR), and never got into this state of confusion.

The way it works is just wrong in my opinion. It leads you to believe that it's a true queuing / SMTP-like messaging system.
If you wish to continue keeping such workflow/use case, please rename "Outbox" to something else, like "Messages sent but not yet read by the intended recipient/target". The way it is now is VERY CONFUSING. If you want it to be different (and unnatural if I may humbly suggest) at least name the things differently, so that we can have a clearer understanding on what the expectations/requirements specs are. POP3 + SMTP has dealt with this need for a confirmation in a different way - using "acceptance/disposition policy tokens". In your case, it will be as if those acknowledgments are automatically generated, without the target having any "veto" right in propagating that feedback back to the sender - so the acceptance concept can still be applied without stretching the use cases :-)

Thank you.
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Re: Private Messaging system doesn't seem to work?

Post by Bylo Selhi »

smihaila wrote:Ah, interesting approach. I recall using this very same system long time ago (while it was FWR), and never got into this state of confusion.
FWR to FWF was essentially a renaming exercise. The forum software didn't change, especially in this respect. The forum software we use is phpBB. It works the way the phbBB people developed it. FWF has limited, if any, control over that. And in any case FWF management made a decision to avoid custom code modifications due to the substantial extra maintenance that requires with every new phbBB release.
The way it works is just wrong in my opinion. It leads you to believe that it's a true queuing / SMTP-like messaging system.
1. Where is it written that a private messaging needs to emulate an POP3-SMTP and conform with those standards?
2. The way phpBB has implemented PM has some practical advantages for users. One is that the sender can modify or even retract a message before the first recipient opens it. Try that with SMTP.
If you wish to continue keeping such workflow/use case, please rename "Outbox" to something else, like "Messages sent but not yet read by the intended recipient/target".
Fair comment. But this really needs to be taken up with the phpBB development group, not FWF. phpBB is perhaps the most popular forum software and certainly the most popular free forum software. Even if FWF were to change our labels as you suggest there would still be millions of forums that use the current confusing terminology. Best to get phpBB to change so that your suggestion is applied universally (*).
POP3 + SMTP has dealt with this need for a confirmation in a different way - using "acceptance/disposition policy tokens". In your case, it will be as if those acknowledgments are automatically generated, without the target having any "veto" right in propagating that feedback back to the sender - so the acceptance concept can still be applied without stretching the use cases :-)
WADR methinks you're overanalysing the intent and operation of phpBB's PM system.

(*) Good luck with that. Here's one response from 2008:
Marshalrusty, phpBB Project Manager wrote:The behavior of the inbox/outbox/sentbox will be changed in future versions of phpBB. The inbox/sentbox will likely be combined and an extra column added to show whether the message has been read, and by whom. Everything is still very tentative, but watch the commits in the future.
Thanks for watching ;)
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
Post Reply