Date   

moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:00 am, J_Catlady wrote:
I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?).
Liam didn't ask for that...he asked for the option to do so with his own group.

We have a restricted-membership group for our non-profit. As people let their membership to the parent organization lapse, I'd like to be able to go into the listing and delete them from the group. If I don't know their email address and they're also allowed to obfuscate their display name, this can make subscriber maintenance challenging.

My $0.02,
Bruce


moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

 

If your group requires first and last names, you can simply require it in your approval questionnaire, and then slap it into the member's Notes page.
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

 

Same privacy problem. I don’t give ANYONE in any group my last name and in a public group, as here, not even my first name. There are other users like me. I think requiring rhis would be a dealbreaker for the business, similar to FB’s ridiculous requirement about ‘real names.’


On Apr 11, 2018, at 10:56 AM, William Finn <liam@...> wrote:

Seeing as there is resistance to this, how about putting in first name last name fields that are available only to moderators or owners that way then we can link them back to the person but for everybody else they see the user created display name.

Then we can restrict modification to the first and last name fields so I can maintain my directory of the person's name linked to their email address and they still have the display name which they can modify to whatever they wish which is what is seen by everyone else

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 1:53 PM D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote:
Like J, I am hesitant to restrict a member's control over their own accounts. Having said that, I have a group that at one time had a big problem with anonymous trolls. The solution I use is to require a full name somewhere in the message or email address for all posts. (There are a few exceptions we allow where a person's name might bring problems should a quote show up outside the group.)

Members are set to unlimited moderation and stay that way until I know they're going to follow that rule. I'm very upfront about that rule and with treating people on the group with the same decency we would use for a person on the street. It's a little more work for me, but it seems to work itself out right away. I remind them that they're adults and have a few responsibilities to the group, and the privilege of not being moderated is tied to those.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.
--
J





--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

William Finn
 

Seeing as there is resistance to this, how about putting in first name last name fields that are available only to moderators or owners that way then we can link them back to the person but for everybody else they see the user created display name.

Then we can restrict modification to the first and last name fields so I can maintain my directory of the person's name linked to their email address and they still have the display name which they can modify to whatever they wish which is what is seen by everyone else

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 1:53 PM D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote:
Like J, I am hesitant to restrict a member's control over their own accounts. Having said that, I have a group that at one time had a big problem with anonymous trolls. The solution I use is to require a full name somewhere in the message or email address for all posts. (There are a few exceptions we allow where a person's name might bring problems should a quote show up outside the group.)

Members are set to unlimited moderation and stay that way until I know they're going to follow that rule. I'm very upfront about that rule and with treating people on the group with the same decency we would use for a person on the street. It's a little more work for me, but it seems to work itself out right away. I remind them that they're adults and have a few responsibilities to the group, and the privilege of not being moderated is tied to those.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.
--
J





moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

 

Like J, I am hesitant to restrict a member's control over their own accounts. Having said that, I have a group that at one time had a big problem with anonymous trolls. The solution I use is to require a full name somewhere in the message or email address for all posts. (There are a few exceptions we allow where a person's name might bring problems should a quote show up outside the group.)

Members are set to unlimited moderation and stay that way until I know they're going to follow that rule. I'm very upfront about that rule and with treating people on the group with the same decency we would use for a person on the street. It's a little more work for me, but it seems to work itself out right away. I remind them that they're adults and have a few responsibilities to the group, and the privilege of not being moderated is tied to those.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.
--
J


moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

 

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Lock Profile Display Names

William Finn
 

A suggestion on profiles.

Adding an option to restrict a User from Modifying their display name.

I have a group and want to preserve first and last names as the display name in the group. Users have a different idea and want to use nondescript display names.

It would be nice if the display name modification could be restricted so a Moderator or Owner can set the name and the user cant change it .

Liam


moderated Mobile App

William Finn
 

I was wondering if there was any plans to build a groups.io app for Android and iPhone.

I have been asked by some of my users so I told them I would pose the question

Thanks

Liam


moderated Re: Suggestion - Access to databases be set at the database level

Jeremy H
 

Another change that is perhaps desirable is that for tables, 'moderator' and 'owner' authority should be separable, to give extra options for 'Owner only'.

But there may be a limit over management, beyond which Mark/Groups.io has to say: 'this is a simple database feature for an e-mail list system: if you want more, you to need to look for something else, this is beyond our scope'

Jeremy


moderated Separate Posting Privileges for E-mail and via Website #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

Coming form the 'Strip Out Embedded images', and other topics, it appears to me that it it might be desirable to make posting privileges (allow/moderate/not) differentiable based on whether the posting is be done by e-mail or through the web site, both as group default and member override.

So a group may be set, e.g. to allow posting only via the website; or that e-mail postings are moderated.

Thought needs to given to 'New member moderator' status - my thought is that the 'countdown' (after which it no longer applies) be based on all postings.

Jeremy
 


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

This is perhaps a concept that deserves to be raised separately... will do

Jeremy


moderated Re: Suggestion - Access to databases be set at the database level

Jeremy H
 

There is a perhaps general issue: there a number of Features that may be restricted to Moderators, but which are not separately authorisable under Moderator Permissions (unlike more traditional moderator functions of managing messages and members). This covers - apart from Database - Calendar, Files, Photos, Polls, and Wiki (and maybe others); and there probably need to be separate authorisation privileges for viewing and modifying/adding/uploading. 

I think this has come up before, but don't know if anything has come of it. But I would certainly urge its implementation, as necessary functionality (especially given recent discussion regarding GDPR/personal data privacy).    

To some extent it is a reflection on the groups.io concept of a 'moderator' as any member (subscriber) with extra privilege, not only those traditionally associated with being a moderator (dealing with members and messages).

Jeremy


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

On 11 Apr 2018, at 04:55, Tom H <ve3meo@...> wrote:

Another idea is a mode that requires all message composition to be done on the website.

I presume this would be an option, if implemented? All the folk who use our groups do so via email - pretty much no-one uses the web interface.

Likewise, any idea of auto-deleting images that are attached would be an option too, I presume, as we are a photography org, we wouldn’t want that to be de facto.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers



Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Tom H
 

Another idea is a mode that requires all message composition to be done on the website. That is, a one-way mail listserver. The Group settings could better control what is in the messages, e.g., no images in signatures, max size of image and other files...


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

William Finn
 

Then how about an auto expiry of the images after a specified time such as x number of days , weeks, months or years so that folder self cleans 

Liam 

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 8:27 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 01:09 pm, Ford Amateur Astronomy Club wrote:
Add the ability to not store the images no matter how they are attached or embedded so they don't use up space 
While I like this idea, do consider the implications...those photos have to be stored somewhere. If they're simply discarded, any subscriber who prefers to read messages online instead of by email won't receive the images at all. Similarly, if a subscriber sends a message with a big photo or two and another subscriber has his personal delivery settings to not accept something that big (see Subscription->Advanced Preferences->Max Attachment Size), they won't see it, either.

We are both managing astronomy groups and imaging is a big component of that. While I would appreciate the flexibility to do it, I suspect our subscribers wouldn't be very happy with us if we actually put it into practice. 

Right now, my problem is not insufficient storage, but scores of little photos of people's faces, 150-byte PNGs of horizontal rules, and garbage like that littering the Emailed Photos folder. Lacking any bulk delete capability, keeping that cleaned out has become a significant chore...and from my perspective the best way to address the problem is not to allow such things to get in there in the first place.

Regards,
Bruce


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 01:09 pm, Ford Amateur Astronomy Club wrote:
Add the ability to not store the images no matter how they are attached or embedded so they don't use up space 
While I like this idea, do consider the implications...those photos have to be stored somewhere. If they're simply discarded, any subscriber who prefers to read messages online instead of by email won't receive the images at all. Similarly, if a subscriber sends a message with a big photo or two and another subscriber has his personal delivery settings to not accept something that big (see Subscription->Advanced Preferences->Max Attachment Size), they won't see it, either.

We are both managing astronomy groups and imaging is a big component of that. While I would appreciate the flexibility to do it, I suspect our subscribers wouldn't be very happy with us if we actually put it into practice. 

Right now, my problem is not insufficient storage, but scores of little photos of people's faces, 150-byte PNGs of horizontal rules, and garbage like that littering the Emailed Photos folder. Lacking any bulk delete capability, keeping that cleaned out has become a significant chore...and from my perspective the best way to address the problem is not to allow such things to get in there in the first place.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Allow subgroups to have subgroups

Ginny T.
 

I too would find this very helpful and useful.
I'm also thinking it might be a bit of a huge thing to ask... :>)
But, yes, I would be one to support the request.
Ginny
--
Ginny T.  gttemari21@...
========
TemariKai.com


moderated Message-ID munging change

 

Hi All,

Most people have 'I always want copies of my own messages' checked in their profile. This is mainly for Gmail (and some other emailers) that would hide list messages sent from ourselves. For messages sent by people where that is checked, we'd change the Message-ID field for the message to something new before we stored the message in the system, and before we sent the message out to everyone. So everyone would get the new Message-ID. 

I've just changed it so that only the original sender will now get a message with a new Message-ID. Everyone else will get the original Message-ID. This changed was requested because of in some scenarios involving cross-posting between lists and CCing messages, the old way would cause duplicate emails.

I've tested this and it should not result in any threading issues. But please let me know if you see anything strange.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Feature Request: Unmutable Hashtag

Bruce Bowman
 

I have an #admin hashtag that I use occasionally to send announcements on system updates. It applies to things that might be of general interest but are not so important as to justify a Special Notice. For example, the recent addition of direct-mail capability via the subscriber Directory prompted a corresponding message to my members using this hashtag. 

I would like the ability to make this hashtag unmutable. It's not a must-have thing, but at least that way I have some assurance that everybody who is getting regular email deliveries has also received the notice. Perhaps other people would have other uses.

This would be a Moderators-only thing. I don't want subscribers creating their own unmutable hashtags. As such, this option would only pop up once you clicked on the "Use By Mods Only" button at the bottom of the Edit Hashtag screen (i.e.: the same way "Replies by Mods Only" currently does).

Just an idea,
Bruce


locked Re: EU General Data Protection Regulation

 

Hi All,

I'm locking this thread. When I have more information from our lawyers about what we need to do to comply with GDPR, I'll post in beta@.

Thanks,
Mark