On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:01 PM, Leeni wrote:

I think that you think that Restricted means by invite only and that is why you won't want the apply button there.

Leeni: I had to read your message a couple of times to work out whether you were addressing me or Beth. I realised you were addressing Beth, and FWIW I was wondering exactly the same as you about her interpretation the meaning of "Restricted".

Chris

I think that you think that Restricted means by invite only and that is why you won't want the apply button there.   I think restricted just means subscriptions need approval or rejection from an owner or moderator. It means they aren't automatically added if they want to join the group. Their membership is pending upon approval.     If you don't want stray members to apply to your group don't have it listed in groups IO Directory. Also you should put on your home page - By Invite Only if that is how your group gets it's members.   Ilene

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:21 PM, Beth Weld wrote:

Please - can we have an option to make that button disappear if the group is restricted?

Perhaps I am having a senior moment but if the Apply button is removed how are people going to, er, apply? And do we assume that you want the "apply by email" function removed as well?

Chris

Chris

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 09:59 AM, Samuel Murray wrote:

The names of the links "Reply To Group" and "Reply To Sender" imply that clicking them will cause a reply to be sent to either the group or the original sender. In reality, clicking those links cause a NEW e-mail to be sent (not a reply).

It is most usual for a "reply" to quote the original message. When you reply privately to the sender, you typically want to quote at least part of the original message. The same applies to replying to the group: it is counter-productive if members send messages to the group as if they are "replies", but without quoting anything of the original message.

Using "Reply to group" results in the message created still being correctly threaded on the web forum, which implies to me that it would also keep it threaded correctly in an e-mail reader.   It is, in every sense of the word, a reply.

I generally strip anything from a previous message from my replies unless something must be maintained for context.  I'd give my eye teeth if most users would strip out the utterly unnecessary bottom quoting of virtually the entirety of an ongoing thread.  If you read via the web interface, the whole topic is right there.  If you're using an e-mail client, you should be using threaded/conversation view so that you can find earlier messages for topics you're actively participating in.

Endless bottom quoting makes searching the archive for a specific piece of information sheer hell when you're trying to go "straight to the original source."
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)

I have a restricted group, and I do not want people to be able to apply to join the group from the main group page (the one you see if you aren't logged in).  I have tried everything I know to tell people not to use the "Apply" button, but apparently no one reads.  When we deny the pending request, it causes confusion and angst no matter what we tell them about how to join the organization and therefore the group (again, if people would read!).

Please - can we have an option to make that button disappear if the group is restricted? I'd rather just not even have it for a restricted group, but I'm sure that some other groups use it even for a restricted group.
Thanks
Beth Weld

And tell them why.
What might be a good Idea is to put them on New Member Moderation with a count of 4
and inform them they are moderated because of the profuse thanking.
Don't tell them it's only for the next 4 msgs they send but if they don't change their ways by the 4th, put them on permanent moderation.
Or Cannot Post, telling them their posting rights have been suspended.

I think you will have more issue with people Replying to other messages with out of topic content
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®t
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation

Even if such a filter were (realistically) feasible, which I don't think it is, it would be overly sensitive. Do you really want to moderate every post containing the word "thanks"? I think not. The problem is not that it would not "catch all instances of flagged terms." The problem is that it would catch too many of them.

I would just put problem members on moderation. 
--
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

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 09:28 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

- For domains hosted by Gmail, we now re-rewrite the From lines of messages we send back to the original sender.

Mark,

As I mentioned before, paradoxically, after you started the From address rewriting for gmail, the "bcc me" on member messages using "send message" started displaying the spam-warning behavior. This did not happen before you started the From rewriting - the behavior seemed to hop from group messages only to "bcc me" messages only. So my question, especially since you mention "group messages" in the documentation below, is whether whatever you did this time will fix the "bcc me" spam warning problem as well.

Thanks.
 
--
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

On 2019/02/26 06:30 PM, Dave Wade wrote:

Probably a waste of time. When some one twigs what is going on they will use
"T H A N K S"

I'm not trying to catch out people who are trying to catch me out. I just want to catch people who are in auto-pilot mode. As soon as a member starts doing what you're talking about, he'll get one last laugh, and then the boot.

I don't fool myself into thinking that such a filter will catch all instances of flagged terms, but it may catch enough of them to make it worth while.

Samuel

Samuel,

Probably a waste of time. When some one twigs what is going on they will use

"T H A N K S"

Or some HTML with &nbsp perhaps, or even simply substitutes the Spanish "Thañks" ...

... people are inventive, technology issn't

Gracias

Dave

Hello

How feasible is it to allow moderators to moderate messages based on keywords that occur in those messages?

For example, I don't want people to send "thank you" messages to the group, but many do (they feel it's polite to flood the group with thank-you notices), so it would help me tremendously if any message containing "thanks", "thank you" and "thankyou" can be held back to be moderated.

Of course, teaching users to use the hashtag #thanks would be ideal, but I suspect most of my users won't do that (or, by the time I realise that a user needs to be reminded of it, it's too late because the message has already gone to the list).

Samuel

Hello everyone

In my opinion, the current wording in the HTML footer encourages bad mailing list etiquette.

The names of the links "Reply To Group" and "Reply To Sender" imply that clicking them will cause a reply to be sent to either the group or the original sender. In reality, clicking those links cause a NEW e-mail to be sent (not a reply).

It is most usual for a "reply" to quote the original message. When you reply privately to the sender, you typically want to quote at least part of the original message. The same applies to replying to the group: it is counter-productive if members send messages to the group as if they are "replies", but without quoting anything of the original message.

There are several good reasons for quoting when replying: not all mails arrive in the correct order at the recipient; message rules may sort mails into folders that do not contain the original message; when replying to a message that make several points, it is preferable to quote the points that you reply to; if a reply is a one-liner, you don't want users to have to consult previous messages to understand the post.

Yes, the two links in the footer does attempt to retain the subject line, but IMO retaining the subject line is of secondary importance. In fact, I truly don't care if users do or do not use the same or similar subject line for replies, as long as they quote relevant sections of messages that they reply to. (This may be different for groups where threading by "topic" is more important.)

Instead of "Reply To Group" and "Reply To Sender", rather write "E-mail To Group" and "E-mail To Sender". Or better yet: "Group's address" and "Sender's address". But I understand that it is sometimes considered "good UI design" to use actions/verbs as link labels.

Your thoughts?
Samuel

In fact, if I was able to modify the footer (I understand why I'm not), I would get rid of "Reply To Group" altogether, for it serves a purpose very similar to "New Topic", and surely most mail programs have a REPLY button! Having the sender's e-mail address in the footer is very useful, though (to encourage private thank-you messages).

Hello

As the moderator of a list, I decided that a certain setting should be changed on the profile pages of all members (they will be able to change it back, if they prefer). This means that I have to edit all members' profile pages (fortunately we haven't "migrated" yet, so it's only about 15 people).

(The setting I'd like to set is to limit attachments to 100 kb. I will then set the group itself to allow attachments without moderation. I'd like to use 100 kb so that users' signatures still show up.)

I tried Ctrl+clicking the members in the members list to open them in new tabs, but that doesn't work. This means that I have to click each member individually, which opens their profile page for me to edit, and then I have to get back to the list and click the next member's name. However, it can be hard to figure out which members I have edited so far.

What would be nice is if, when the moderator edits a user's profile page, that a "next" and "previous" link appear so that the moderator can move to the next or previous member in the list (presumably by join date, which is the default sorting).

[A possible current workaround for my problem (since everyone is still new) would be to set each member to "no mail" at the same time, because the "no mail" status is also visible in the member's list, and then set everyone back to "individual mails" afterwards, after I've edited each member profile.]

Thanks
Samuel

Mark,

Both 3 and 4 are at the domain level. Why bother with new group/user
settings, when two lists of domains would do a potentially better job?

I believe the original impetus for #4 was from a group owner who wanted to be able to set that function for his group members because they were predominantly exchange users. I suggested making it an account setting (with group default) because those members would then benefit in their other subscriptions.

That said, managed domain lists are probably the better solution.

It would be nice to "surface" that fact to the affected users somehow (perhaps a text note in their Account pages) so that there is a ready explanation for the "why are addresses munged at my xyz address but not my abc address?". Group admins (and GMF) could then tell them to go read that place.

What if I add a section to the help, with an area for someone to input
their domain to be added to one of the two lists?

Crowd-sourcing those designations seems like a good idea, especially for #3, but I do share the concern that Ken seems to be alluding to: naive or malicious users could cause havoc by adding inappropriate domains to the list.

If the help form simply nominates domains, and you have to vet them, that's safer. A bit more work for you, but maybe less work overall than having to cull the list from support requests or other sources.

Ordinarily the help form doesn't require being logged in - and that's a good thing. But maybe if the user happens to be logged in, and if their domain isn't yet on your list of known domains, you could display a section that explains about the possible need for munging the address and provides a checkbox for the user to nominate their domain.

I'd take the nomination/confirmation in two steps. That is, begin munging addresses to that user immediately upon nomination. That way the user can observe the effect for themselves, and possibly un-check the nomination. On your own schedule you can review the nominations and determine whether any of them should apply site-wide.

Seems like that'd be less complicated/confusing than new settings and
would potentially help more people.

Agreed. Most group owners shouldn't really need to know all about the quirks of their members' email services.

Even the members themselves shouldn't - at least for major mailbox providers. Users with custom domains may be considered an outlier in terms of their knowledge of their email service.

Shal