moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion
Received from Shal Farley at 10/1/2018 01:11 AM UTC:
J's original request, since unchanged in this regard, wasn't for an anonymous group as much as it was for a group with no "via email" subscribers. Anonymity with via email subscribers is unacceptable to her.
Why not, when Gio is perfectly capable of rewriting email addresses, simply rewrite the "From:" address on replies via email instead of excluding "via email" subscribers?
The only defect I see in my anonymous scheme is that all messages appear to be from the same no-reply address. That is, something like:
I find that perfectly acceptable from an initial lack of confusion standpoint, but when a subscriber tries to reply where does the reply go? Maybe you intend that to be an address that actually accepts replies to the group, but everywhere else the "noreply" part tells prospective repliers that nobody is listening. That will be confusing. Why not simply <email@example.com>?
That's not too serious given that you have to go to the site to reply anyway,
So it's not really just an anonymous group; it's a group that excludes "via email" subscribers!
Why would you have to do that if the objective is really just anonymity vs disenfranchising "via email" subscribers? That's OK for Group owners to do on a group by group basis, but if I ran Gio I wouldn't dream of implementing anonymous groups in a manner that excluded "via email" subscribers from all anonymous groups. To repeat the analogy I offered to J, that's no different than a restaurant owner excluding customers who arrive in a red car.
but it would be nicer if something could be put into the From address to distinguish posters (without revealing email addresses).
That's EXACTLY what I suggested. (Emphasis above mine.) A display name is needed to help create community. It also makes it easier for the Owner to identify problem posters. And unlike J, who wants to select the display name herself, I think it's imperative that anonymous members select their own names if only so they'll be happy with the selection.
then one has something like:
Yes, but not being clear what "user=" is when we would already have a display name to differentiate between members, why not simply
"Display Name" <firstname.lastname@example.org>?
Maybe, to avoid the complication of enforcing a user name selection that could be left optional and "noreply" used if the user hasn't set his/her User Name. Then it would be up to moderators and peer pressure to convince members to set a unique User Name in their account, if the group cares about that.
I think a sense of community demands a display name, but if a given group owner doesn't care, that's fine with me. Or the owner can select one immediately following approval of a subscription and then tell the subscriber they can change it, but cannot leave it blank... or some other scenario/approach to enforcing a Display Name. I'm not married to the method, only the result. Whether or not Gio provides a means to enforce selection, enforcement is possible with some added effort on the part of group owners... and if not then I predict you'll soon see a feature suggestion to add enforcement by Gio. ;-)
Bottom line is I don't see exclusion of "via email" members from *ALL* anonymous groups as a good model for Gio to follow. Individual group owners could be permitted to make that decision, but I think Gio making that decision globally across all anonymous groups is - for lack of better words - not "user friendly." Owners can be given what they want without poking many potential subscribers in the eye.
But as I said... I don't picture Gio implementing either suggestion for anonymous groups any time soon... if ever.