Obviously I’m testing with several accounts I created just for this purpose (using virtual machines and other browsers and too much time testing ).
I think I resolved the issue on my end. It had nothing to do with Discourse.
There’s a bit of code in my site’s footer that checks – for users whose email has been verified – if they are logged in to Discourse already and, if they aren’t, logs them in. This informs Discourse of users’ info, even if they don’t visit the forum itself.
Alas, this chunk was being accidentally cached so, of course, it wasn’t firing because it had been cached when no user had logged in. My bad!
This is probably the best place still to mention that there are cases when Discourse drives me absolutely nuts.
I happen to have several “users” that are not real. Whether they are read-only accounts for a specific hidden category, anonymous beyond the capabilities of Discourse or whatever should not matter. Some of these are automatic and created on the fly as needed (and reused in a queue).
Problem is, they have been added using a “noreply” email. That email does not exist anymore so Discourse is spamming out admin mails saying this email bounced, all the time, for each of these users and the moderators are now starting to go nuts.
Now, if I go in and change that email to an existing no-forward, no-store email, Discourse refuses to do it without sending a mail to said email asking for confirmation… so no changes are made. Anyone see the problem here?
So I have two options I can think of:
Log in as each user using SSO to force an email change (which hopefully does not require confirmation, haven’t actually tried, would be too tedious).
Go to the preferences of each such user and change email notifications and summary digests to never, ever. And every time a new temporary user gets created, I need to remember to do the same.
Maaaaan. If I as an admin change an email for a user, there is no need to ask the user to confirm the email. Any user will hopefully contact me if I actually messed up which is very unlikely. Besides, these days I just let the users change their emails at will, less trouble for a poor admin. And I understand there is a risk that the user will never be able to login or notify anyone again but obviously they can mail the site help as such.
Why not use the sync_sso endpoint to fix all the emails via api?
Not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about the setting “sso overrides email”?
That would only take effect when/if the user actually logs in. So emails would still bounce while the email is wrong.
If you are possibly talking about “POST admin endpoint /admin/users/sync_sso to synchronize an SSO record” that would mean I would have to force one or all users from the SSO software I guess. Given the problems with SSO emails syncing it’s not the first option I would try.
Anyway, because of the problem described earlier in this topic I now have “sso overrides email” off and let users change their emails themselves. So I don’t want to override from SSO anymore.
But all this is missing the point, that the users bouncing mails are generated on the fly, as needed. The easiest way would be to allow a change to the email without authentication (at least for admins - or admins would have a choice).
Side note: I have tried giving an empty email address but the system does not allow for that. I understand the email address is so critical is should not be empty. BUT, if you really give an empty email (at least as an admin), one could assume you know what you are doing.
Just to confuse things more, I actually have users that do not have an email account, only access to a browser. Think refugees here and you might understand why. It is far easier to just allow someone to login and read instructions in their own language than to try and explain to them they need to make a gmail account or something.
In any case, this is theoretical, I doubt many people have the same problem. I would say it’s simply too strict even for admins, IMHO.
(sorry about the reply time, with more free time the world would be perfect)
That would allow someone to hijack an admin’s account without their knowing. Though your edge case for users without access to email makes some sense, it seems far-fetched to think that admins would be people who don’t have the ability to receive email.
Admins have email addresses. Not sure where you got the idea they would not have (my bad writing probably ).
The case was for an admin to be able to change other user’s emails without the need to authenticate.