It would be good to have option to prevents to change Display Name once after group admin set it up.

We have situation that we run private group and cannot identify users by their email addresses and default display names. Therefore admins contacts them do find out who they are, and edits Display names to add identification data (it is private group so we do not have privacy issues).

However, once in a while some user edits and changes Display Name not realizing that he overrides value set by admin and breaks identification requirement. It would be easier if they simply could not edit Display Name after admin sets it.

Okay I see This way the taggers wouldn't have to remember to add it there themselves. That sound like a good idea. Ilene

Bruce's idea above may not be that much of a "kludge" after all.  You could include the required hashtag in the "Subject Tag" under "Message Format" (see settings) which will automatically include it in every message.  (Note I have not tested this, but we add text there which is helpful.  The only problem would be is if for some reason it strips hashtags from the "Subject Tag.")

Peace,
Tom

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 09:38 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

CHANGE: The pending message notification email now uses the pending message's subscriber email address instead of the Sender line when describing who the message is from.

Morning Mark,

I don't know if this is new to this change, but I think there is a confusing link in the first line of the pending message the pending member received.  It reads:

       Thank you for your interest in the Forum@DeFeverCruisers.groups.io group at Groups.io.

Note it has an "@" but points to a website address, it is not a mailto link.  Shouldn't it be the main web address for the group such as https://defevercruisers.groups.io in our case?  I think this is especially confusing since the next line in the message has the same text which is a mailto link.

Peace,
Tom

Changes to the site this week:

• BUGFIX: Fix encoding issues with CSV formatted member list download.
• CHANGE: The pending message notification email now uses the pending message's subscriber email address instead of the Sender line when describing who the message is from.
• CHANGE: On the Members page, only bring up the Action dialog if at least one member is selected.
• NEW: Include in the activity log the message sent to someone when directly adding them, similar to how invites are done.
• INTERNAL: Fixed database connection closing issue.
• INTERNAL: Moved all database connections to use a connection pooler.
• CHANGE: Help file tweaks.
• BUGFIX: Fixed two issues with chat that could cause chat messages to not be delivered to all members of the chat room.
• NEW: The member subgroups page now has a Joined column for the subgroups a member is a part of.
• SYSADMIN: Tuned the database.
• NEW: Added 'Int' and 'NS' badges to the pending messages page for messages from Integrations and Non Subscribers.
• BUGFIX: Fixed issue with approving pending messages from non-subscribers.
• BUGFIX: Fixed an issue with long running chat sessions.
• INTERNAL: Now caching some web pages.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark

Yes, you are understanding me correctly. I want to be able to disable the online message archive, if not all together if it can't be done,  but have the option to hide it from members. A new entry in the Visibility dropdown in the group Settings would be wonderful.   Yes that option was available in Y groups See attachment   A workaround will help if there is one.   I appreciate you opening up the discussion again in GMF as now the issue has become more noticeable about something having to be done since the members now have had time to explore groups IO and what they are able to do that they couldn't do in Y groups because I had that feature disabled from them.   I also realize that this issue may not be high priority for Mark reading about all he has done and needs to do. One thing I do have is patience and understanding as long as I know I have been heard which I have. I do love Groups IO a lot and probably will in the near future transfer my other 3 groups over to IO.   Thanks, Ilene

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 05:01 PM, magicalkingdomgroups@... wrote:

But if it was something I can set up, then I'd give it a try.

If I understand you correctly, what you really want is to disable the online message archive altogether, perhaps as a new entry in the Visibility dropdown in the group Settings. You also previously stated in GMF that this option was available to you in Y!G.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just trying to suggest a workaround that might make life easier for you while Mark ponders (and prioritizes) the notion. We can discuss the settings by reopening your thread in GMF from mid-May. I'll post something over there in a few minutes.

Regards,
Bruce

I know the shortest amount of time is 1 day to lock a topic unless I go in and do it manually.   Now I am computer illiterate. I really don't know what a hashtag is   I don't understand what needs to be done. My members I know won't understand hashtags either so if they have to do it, then that would be a no go.   But if it was something I can set up, then I'd give it a try.   Ilene

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:11 PM, magicalkingdomgroups@... wrote:

I know that the shortest amount of time that a message can be locked is 1 day if it isn't locked manually sooner.

Ilene --

You can set up a hashtag that -- when used -- locks the topic as soon as it is posted. You can also set up your group to require hashtags, and also set it up so only Moderators can create hashtags. See where I'm going with this?

-- Your group requires hashtags, 
-- You only have one available, and
-- It locks the topic.

I know it's a kludge, and will require some training of your subscribers. But it should work.

Hope this helps,
Bruce

My groups were functioning fine in Yahoo groups as an email based group. The only reason for my switch to IO was because one group depended upon the mail to be sent immediately where yahoo had many delays.   You misunderstood what I was asking. I would like the messages on the group site to be locked immediately upon sending or a way to hide the messages from subscribers altogether.   A signature tag request group is many elderly homebound members like to send emails to their friends and grandchildren and like to put a cute fun tag with their name on it or a Grandma tag in their email. It is a tag that takes the place of just writing a name.   Now it doesn't matter if everyone receives the email at the same time. That is the nature of the group to see the offer for the signature tag in their inbox and not from the site. If they see an offer is made, they need to hunt in their email inbox, spam, trash etc for it.   I know that locked topics can be read. But they cannot request a tag from those locked topics. They need to find the original email and reply showing the complete email from the person offering the tag and that is okay and they could be doing that. But they aren't.   I don't understand what you mean by a group text message.     Ilene

Ilene,
I don't know what a signature tag request is but it sounds like groups.io may not be a good fit for these offer announcements.  Even email is not a good mechanism as there is no way to ensure that all recipients receive the message at the same time, if that's what's intended.  I know of no way to have the message emailed but not displayed on the web site.  Even locked topics are still visible and the member can then check their email to reply directly to the poster.
A group text message with the email of the poster and info on the offer might be a better approach as that is more "real time".  
Just a thought.
Toby

I don't know if this has been addressed or not. I know that the shortest amount of time that a message can be locked is 1 day if it isn't locked manually sooner.   Is there any way a selection could be added to have messages automatically  locked as soon as they are sent OR another option would be having a way to hide the messages from the members.   The reason behind my question. My groups are Signature Tag Request groups. One group the offers are really short term offers like for the first 10 members who request.   Most members are getting the offer via email as my group is basically an email group and that is what we need it to be. Not a forum where they can read the offers from the group pages.   There are a few members who hang out at the messages waiting for new offers to come through and they are at an advantage to get their requests in quicker then anyone else and end up getting all of the tags that way.   While I am online almost 24/7 I can't lock the messages quick enough.   Thanks. Ilene                               

Mark,

Honestly not sure what, if anything, to do with SPF and DKIM. Seeing
plenty of valid emails with bad DKIM sigs, for example.

I have two goals:

1) Prevent abuse posted to a group such as that I reported to support 8/11. This is where a malcontent or crook uses credentials at an otherwise legit mailbox provider to spoof a group member's address, resulting in junk posted to the group.

2) Eliminate the need for a confirmation email and response for email commands in most cases.

Case (1) is the more important, but I think (2) is easier. Mostly because there is no adverse consequence of a failed authentication in case (2) - you just send the confirmation email as you do now. You could accept the OR of two tests: a valid DKIM, signed by the header-from domain as one test; or a passing SPF but only if the the header-from domain is aligned with the envelope-from domain as the other test. This happens to be the same as the DMARC criteria, I think. So in the case of a "pass" you send a notification of the command's acceptance and effect rather than a request for confirmation.

In case (1) the difficulty arises if both tests fail. That's sure to be true in the case I want to weed out, but I don't know how many legit messages might be affected. I think the case you cited to me on 8/13 would be one such; unless we (you) can figure out something he could tell you by way of account information that would let you make a third test that would pass his messages.

My inclination is to say that it is "good enough" if you force messages that fail both tests into the pending queue, as if sent by a non-subscriber (but with a different marking, of course). That would have allowed the group mod in my support case to discard the abuse before it hit the group.

Yes, that would be a pain for the second fellow, and his group mods. But he's already committed to switching Thunderbird to use the correct SMTP server, so that should solve his case. One down...

Shal

I'm fine with that, too. Our messages are not very long anyway, and all we really need to see is the gist of the message.
--
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

Hi All,

It's been a couple of days since the unplanned downtime on Tuesday. Here's a summary of what happened and what I've done to address it.

What Happened

• I was paged at approximately 6:50am on Tuesday; the alert indicated that all web servers were down. The page and alert were correct and timely.
• It took me about the next hour to figure out the problem. The web servers were running out of connections to the database and were constantly restarting. It appeared the reason was a change I made to the chat system the previous day.
• I disabled chat, restarted all the webservers, and the site was back up.
• Email delivery was not affected during this time.

Changes Made

• I believe I've addressed the bug of chat taking up all the database connections, although without a stress test (ie. a large group of people using it) I am not positive.
• I have partitioned the chat system so that even if it does in the future have a resource leak like this, it will not take down the webservers. It would only affect chat.
• I have implemented a connection pooling system in front of the main database system and reevaluated all database connection timeouts, to make the overall system more resilient to any sort of database connection leak.

Thanks, Mark

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 12:01 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

Another idea would be to have a dedicated "direct add" page, just like there's now an "invite" page, and log the messages only there in both cases.

I think having everything logged in one place, with the option of the amount of detail displayed, is a better option.

Peace,
Tom

--
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

Mark,

If that is true, I BEG you to at least make it an option to include the message in the log,  We use the log daily and send out an extensive direct add message.  This change makes the log just about unusable, at least for us.

PLEASE include an option for a "one line log entries" or "detailed log entries" (maybe at the top of the page).

Thanks for your consideration.

Peace,
Tom