moderated Re: Make sequence of mods receipt of pending member notice more consistent #suggestion



I like all of those suggestions.

And as an added bonus, let’s please clarify the language. People with existing gio accounts DO currently have to respond to an email asking them to “confirm” their request to join a group. Yet every time this issue comes up, we’re distracted by shouts of “no, people with existing accounts don’t have to confirm” or “that’s not a confirmation message.”

Well, it walks like a confirmation message snd it quacks like a confirmation message. It’s identical in every way, shape, and form to the “real” (yuck, yuck) confirmation message. The title is the same and the message body is the same. So if we have to call them something besides a confirmation message to avoid being pedantically corrected every time, let’s distinguish the two in some way. “Verify” your irterest instead of “confirm”? Something, anything. Otherwise we are forced to refer to two identical objects differently simply because they were generated by distinct processes.

On top of that, because of the (incorrect) statements here that current account holders don’t have to confirm, some group owners wrongly state in their home page that “only if this your first gio group, you will have to respond to an email to confirm” your interest. This is particularly a-factual for restricted groups with a pending member questionnaire as well. Only non-current account holders are warned that they must look for and reply to TWO messages if they happen to apply via email.
On Dec 6, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Shal Farley <> wrote:


It's déjà vu all over again.

Case 1: member with an existing gio account applies via email --> mod
does NOT receive the pending notice unftil after the member confirms
(Possibly this is intentional?)
Case 3: person withot an existing gio account applies via email ...
I believe it is intentional, because hobgoblins and spambots. That is, all email commands (except +help and +owner) require confirmation before they do anything, +subscribe follows the majority.

The intent is to keep the group managers (and unrestricted groups) from being flooded by spambot-generated +subscribe requests.

I can see two improvements that could be made.

1) Eliminate the confirmation requirement when the From address passes reasonable authentication criteria. For +subscribe the group managers can be notified of the request immediately (as with web requests).

Replace the request message with a notice that the command was received (where appropriate). This would be a boon for all of the email commands.

2) Maybe notify the moderators immediately in Case 1. While it is possible that a spambot may have spoofed an already registered address, it may be sufficiently less likely as to not represent the problem that general addresses would.



Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

Join to automatically receive all group messages.