Date   

Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 08:02 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
My answer to the cluttered Email Photos album may have seemed a toss-off ("I don't need to look there"), but yours is not much less so: you wouldn't have one at all (or would have an empty one).
All photo *attachments* will still show up in the Emailed Photos folder. Only the embedded images will go to the bit-bucket.

On the other hand I'm fully on board with the storage concern.
Hallelujah, we's halfway there! :-)

I don't object at all to having such a control. Sledgehammers have their place. The good thing is that neither proposal (Drew's or mine) is incompatible with implementing yours in the shorter term. Just as we don't have to opt for stripping (or bouncing) embedded images, any group that does wouldn't need our options.

My purpose in commenting here is to explore whether there's a workable solution that resolves the /duplication/ problem, without also trimming away the originals.
I have no problem with your sig line suggestion in the earlier thread, but my concern about it stems from it being too pie-in-the-sky. Simply deleting the embedded images is a much easier thing to do and on that basis stands a much greater chance of being implemented within a reasonable timeframe.

The simplest way to kill a good idea is to pad it with "nice-to-have" features until the implementation becomes so daunting and the timeline so lengthy that the original proposal dies a natural death. I don't want to see that happen with this one.

Regards,
Bruce


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Bruce,

However, keep in mind that much of the problem stems not at all from
the original post, but all the replies from subscribers that fail to
trim.
Indeed so.

The storage limit and cluttered Emailed Photos album are both
legitimate concerns and should not be tossed off as unimportant.
My answer to the cluttered Email Photos album may have seemed a toss-off ("I don't need to look there"), but yours is not much less so: you wouldn't have one at all (or would have an empty one).

On the other hand I'm fully on board with the storage concern.

This option strikes me as fairly simple to implement, and I cannot
fathom why anyone would object to having the tool in our toolbox.
I don't object at all to having such a control. Sledgehammers have their place. The good thing is that neither proposal (Drew's or mine) is incompatible with implementing yours in the shorter term. Just as we don't have to opt for stripping (or bouncing) embedded images, any group that does wouldn't need our options.

My purpose in commenting here is to explore whether there's a workable solution that resolves the /duplication/ problem, without also trimming away the originals.

Short of the kind of automation I suggested (that indeed may be too complicated to be implemented, at least in the short run), I like Drew's suggestion (2), even though it may entail a fair amount of group manager attention to preserve the desirable images in a permanent album.

Shal


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 04:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
To me, stripping all embedded images just to cope with the proliferation problem feels like tossing the baby with the bathwater. In many of my groups there's a large value in being able to include illustrations or snap-shots in the running text of the messages. My goal would be to make that work as smoothly as possible in most cases.
I do understand why some people would choose not to implement this in their own group(s). However, keep in mind that much of the problem stems not at all from the original post, but all the replies from subscribers that fail to trim. 

And Groups.io has largely achieved that. Were it not for group storage limits I wouldn't even have much heartache over the duplicated images resulting from replies, or the superfluous images in some members' sigs. Yes, they make a mess of the Emailed Photos album, but that's a feature I'm willing to ignore so long as messages can retain their image components.
Different group owners have different priorities. The storage limit and cluttered Emailed Photos album are both legitimate concerns and should not be tossed off as unimportant. 

This option strikes me as fairly simple to implement, and I cannot fathom why anyone would object to having the tool in our toolbox.

Regards,
Bruce


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Drew,

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized
thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive
MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, ...
I like that suggestion, it relates here in the sense of providing a reminder of images lost, given the implementation of (2).

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be
retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically
deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them
to a permanent folder during that time.
I like the idea of allowing the group managers to move selected images to a permanent album (assuming the <img> linkage in the message body gets fixed-up accordingly).

But I don't see the need for a time limit on the ones that haven't been moved; they could just auto-delete as any old attachment (assuming the group's management has selected to delete old attachments when approaching the group's storage limit).

Shal


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Bruce,

As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid"
(and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. ... and
when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting
through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments
instead.
Ah, I was wondering if you'd allow attachments, or require them to use the Photos section instead.

To me, stripping all embedded images just to cope with the proliferation problem feels like tossing the baby with the bathwater. In many of my groups there's a large value in being able to include illustrations or snap-shots in the running text of the messages. My goal would be to make that work as smoothly as possible in most cases.

And Groups.io has largely achieved that. Were it not for group storage limits I wouldn't even have much heartache over the duplicated images resulting from replies, or the superfluous images in some members' sigs. Yes, they make a mess of the Emailed Photos album, but that's a feature I'm willing to ignore so long as messages can retain their image components.

Shal


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

Drew -- How does this address duplication of images in the Emailed Photos folder?

Your thumbnail suggestion has applicability not only to embedded images but to attached ones as well. While I agree it would be nice to have that, if we could keep the two issues separate and not confuse your previous feature request with a problem that only arises with embedded images I'd really appreciate that.

Thanks,
Bruce


On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Drew wrote:
Here's a suggestion...

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized
thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive
MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, as per following suggestion

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16208

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be
retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically
deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them to
a permanent folder during that time.

Admittedly, there is probably no need to permanently retain thumbnail
images of silly signature gifs, etc., but they will not take up much
space and will provide an archive of sorts of every image that
subscribers have posted to the group.


Drew





On 09/23/18 10:25, Bruce Bowman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:50 AM, Shal Farley wrote:


As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a
few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the
existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only
scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066
The "cid" version is the only one that I consider objectionable, inasmuch as these are the ones that proliferate.

An image embedded via a hyperlink (e.g: an <img> tag) is not objectionable to me, as it takes up no space in the group, or even on groups.io's server. It can become a problem later if the referenced, off-site image is subsequently deleted, but that's the OP's problem.

As for the "data" one, they aren't too objectionable, inasmuch as they are rarely used. But assuming such images do get forwarded in a reply, it would probably be best if they were handled in the same way as "cid".


I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and
perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but
operating only on embedded images.
I will take that as a bump. :-)


My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted
images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545
It would, but sounds so complicated as to never get implemented. As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid" (and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. This will take care of the sig line thing (not to mention that little 150-byte PNG reply separator in W10 Mail) automatically, and when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments instead.*

Bruce

*I acknowledge that I could be giving your average subscriber too much credit.




Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

Here's a suggestion...

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, as per following suggestion

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16208

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them to a permanent folder during that time.

Admittedly, there is probably no need to permanently retain thumbnail images of silly signature gifs, etc., but they will not take up much space and will provide an archive of sorts of every image that subscribers have posted to the group.
Sounds good.


YahooGroups automatically removed attachments from messages and put them in an “Attachments” folder in the “Files” section. This made it easy for members to find an attachment by looking in that folder, rather than having to find the message, which frequently did not a Subject Line that was the same as the Attachment’s name and therefore makes finding the correct message more difficult.

Additionally a Group Owner or empowered Moderator, could easily (find and) delete attachments or move them to an appropriate folder in “Files”. I would quite appreciate it if Groups.io would add a feature that would allowing deleting or moving attachments.


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Drew
 

Here's a suggestion...

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, as per following suggestion

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16208

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them to a permanent folder during that time.

Admittedly, there is probably no need to permanently retain thumbnail images of silly signature gifs, etc., but they will not take up much space and will provide an archive of sorts of every image that subscribers have posted to the group.


Drew

On 09/23/18 10:25, Bruce Bowman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:50 AM, Shal Farley wrote:


As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a
few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the
existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only
scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066
The "cid" version is the only one that I consider objectionable, inasmuch as these are the ones that proliferate.
An image embedded via a hyperlink (e.g: an <img> tag) is not objectionable to me, as it takes up no space in the group, or even on groups.io's server. It can become a problem later if the referenced, off-site image is subsequently deleted, but that's the OP's problem.
As for the "data" one, they aren't too objectionable, inasmuch as they are rarely used. But assuming such images do get forwarded in a reply, it would probably be best if they were handled in the same way as "cid".


I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and
perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but
operating only on embedded images.
I will take that as a bump. :-)


My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted
images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545
It would, but sounds so complicated as to never get implemented. As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid" (and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. This will take care of the sig line thing (not to mention that little 150-byte PNG reply separator in W10 Mail) automatically, and when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments instead.*
Bruce
*I acknowledge that I could be giving your average subscriber too much credit.


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

Brilliant! Many thanks, Mark.

Cheers

Helen


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:50 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066
The "cid" version is the only one that I consider objectionable, inasmuch as these are the ones that proliferate.

An image embedded via a hyperlink (e.g: an <img> tag) is not objectionable to me, as it takes up no space in the group, or even on groups.io's server. It can become a problem later if the referenced, off-site image is subsequently deleted, but that's the OP's problem.

As for the "data" one, they aren't too objectionable, inasmuch as they are rarely used. But assuming such images do get forwarded in a reply, it would probably be best if they were handled in the same way as "cid".

I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but operating only on embedded images.
I will take that as a bump. :-)

My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545
It would, but sounds so complicated as to never get implemented. As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid" (and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. This will take care of the sig line thing (not to mention that little 150-byte PNG reply separator in W10 Mail) automatically, and when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments instead.*

Bruce

*I acknowledge that I could be giving your average subscriber too much credit.


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Bruce,

And so, with some trepidation, I would like to resurrect the idea of a
group option that strips embedded images from messages and does
something with them besides letting them just proliferate in the
Emailed Photos folder.
As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066

I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but operating only on embedded images.

I just spent the last two hours deleting a bunch of dupe images linked
to messages saying things like "me too."
My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545

Shal


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 01:10 PM, D R Stinson wrote:
Photo attachments can be limited by resampling. Go to Settings > Photos > Max Size In Email and set to "Automatically resize photos that are larger than a specific size in emails." There is an option to select a maximum resample size.
Yes, but this is not the same as limiting the size of the attachment in MB. It does nothing to attachments that are not images. And an uncompressed TIFF file can be pretty big even after it's been rescaled. Ask me how I know.

Bruce


moderated Re: Footer variations in individual emails

 

Mark,

... I suggest changing your group to Force HTML Emails, if you like
the HTML footers, or PlainTextOnly if you want the plain text footers.
Maybe "Force HTML Emails" should be a subscription option rather than a group option. Or in addition to.

That way members who seem incapable (for whatever reason) of "going private" by simply copying the original From address into the To address of their reply can be told to check that box in their subscription. Without inflicting the rest of the group members with more HTML.

(I DO NOT suggest the same for Plain Text Only, as that has consequences for how messages appear on the group's Messages pages. Also some group moderators prefer it as an "anti-exploit" feature, over and above any "cleaning" of HTML message bodies that Groups.io does.)

Shal


moderated Re: Settings, Preferences, Etc. #suggestion

 

Brian,

A good example of this is for the the format one wishes to send
messages in.
That one in particular I wish was also in the formatting toolbar above the message composition box, as an ad hoc override to the default one sets in one's account preferences.

On that page the preference in relation to this is listed as "Post
Preference," which I also think is not precisely clear as far as
e-mail participants are concerned.
It has no effect on email posting. It is only for the on-site composition pages (including Wiki as well as messages).

Shal


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

YT9TP - Pedja
 

Default Sub Settings are applied only to new subscribers, and can subsequently be overridden in their individual Subscription.
On that basis, it's appropriate that your recent change should not affect existing subscriptions.
Ok, it is clear now. I admit i did not thoroughly look for option description as I assumed that it limits size of incoming messages not outgoing.

There is no setting to limit the size of an attachment your group will accept.
I am very surprised to hear that. I have posted message to GMF to ask people to support request that such option is added. Turning moderation just for case that someone might go south and send attachment bomb to the group is not practilcal.


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

 

Right. That’s what I had in mind in thinking ‘attachments.’ You and Bruce are correct.

On Sep 22, 2018, at 10:10 AM, D R Stinson <dano@mt.net> wrote:

Photo attachments can be limited by resampling. Go to Settings > Photos > Max Size In Email and set to "Automatically resize photos that are larger than a specific size in emails." There is an option to select a maximum resample size.

Dano


On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

Since messages can be rejected based on too large of an attachment...


They can't.

Bruce


--
J

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


moderated Max image size change

 

Hi All,

Earlier this morning, someone sent a massive 55mb 43k x 21k image through the system (the group was not set to resize images in emails), and it caused a bit of havoc with some processes running out of memory or taking too long to complete. I've changed it so that, if a group is set to not resize images, we will resize any images to a max of 10k per side.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

 

Photo attachments can be limited by resampling. Go to Settings > Photos > Max Size In Email and set to "Automatically resize photos that are larger than a specific size in emails." There is an option to select a maximum resample size.

Dano

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

Since messages can be rejected based on too large of an attachment...


They can't.

Bruce


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

 

This is not a bug. You may be misunderstanding the settings available. Take this to Group Manager's Forum https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum and we can discuss it there.
Dano

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

I noticed that group had attachment limit set to unlimited, and of course one user managed to send very large attachment to the group.

I changed setting to limit to reasonable attachment size for the group but I notice that for users setting is still set to unlimited.

Is that a bug or group setting would override member setting?


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 11:34 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Since messages can be rejected based on too large of an attachment...
They can't.

Bruce

10041 - 10060 of 28347