Date   

moderated Re: Internet explorer 11?

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:05 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
if this message shows up
It's not showing up! (KIDDING;)
 
--
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 Re: Internet explorer 11?

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I'm currently logged in using IE11, so if this message shows up after I hit the Reply to Group button then that means the web interface is working from IE11 here.

--

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)


moderated Re: Internet explorer 11?

Dave Wade
 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 05:52 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:


Hi All,

Is anyone using Windows 10 with Internet Explorer 11? I've a report of someone
not being able to reply to messages via the website with that combo.

Thanks,
Mark
Not usually, but its installed so I thought I would try....
…. can't see any issues...


moderated Re: EarthLink

Sharon Villines
 

Can you fix the subject line. I keep opening these messages to see if there is anything new about Earthlink.

Thanks,
Sharon

On Mar 6, 2019, at 10:05 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

Totally agree with Bruce. It was a nice thought, but the only solutions to make it really work seem too convoluted.
--
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 Internet explorer 11?

 

Hi All,

Is anyone using Windows 10 with Internet Explorer 11? I've a report of someone not being able to reply to messages via the website with that combo.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: EarthLink

 

Totally agree with Bruce. It was a nice thought, but the only solutions to make it really work seem too convoluted.
--
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 Re: EarthLink

Bruce Bowman
 

Making the available Actions based on what checkboxes you check is doable, but more complicated, and perhaps not very intuitive. Please consider the situation where you accidentally select one person who *isn't* in a Bouncing condition and end up struggling to understand why "Send Bounce Probe" isn't showing up. I find the condition of the pull-down menu easier to wrap my head around than trying to sort through a litany of status badges.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: EarthLink

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 06:16 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
grayed out
Or "disabled," as Mark likes to call it - putting a little "x" on the button when you try to click on it, and making it clear that it is non-functional.
 
--
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 Re: EarthLink

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 06:14 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Such flags as are appended to any given member in the "full" list are carried over into any filtered list.
Yes, totally, the flags are there. But you would still be able to select non-bouncing as well as bouncing members from your search results. So the "send bounce probe" action would have to be grayed out if you do that. It does seem doable, but it *would* have to be done to prevent users from sending bounce probes to non-bouncing members.
 
--
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 Re: EarthLink

Chris Jones
 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 01:32 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
whereas if you filter ( or "sort") the members list by any criterion, then you don't know that all the members returned are bouncing.
Not all the members will return as bouncing, just those that are. Filter by email provider shows those that are bouncing as well as those that are not, which can be helpful in examining MSP - specific delivery problems. Such flags as are appended to any given member in the "full" list are carried over into any filtered list.

Chris


moderated Re: EarthLink

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 03:52 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
make Send Bounce Probe an available action based on whether or not the member concerned has a Bouncing flag,
I do agree that being able to do this specifically would be handy, especially given these ISP-specific problems, but if you sort on email address and then filter on "earthlink," as in your example, you can get the scenario you mentioned, where you get, e.g,. 3 who are bouncing and 3 who aren't. So if you mean you want to make the action available on only the 3 who are bouncing, then I think that would be great. But I think to accomplish that you'd have to do something like have the system gray out the action if you select any non-bouncing members. It seems doable.
 
--
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 Re: EarthLink

 

On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 03:52 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
If I sort members by Bouncing one of the Actions I have available is Send Bounce Probe.
What do you mean by "sort members by Bouncing"? Is that even possible? I know you can find the list of Bouncing members by using the Members dropdown. But that provides a list members all of whom are known to be bouncing, and where "send bounce probe" makes sense if you select any or all of them; whereas if you filter ( or "sort") the members list by any criterion, then you don't know that all the members returned are bouncing. So I'm not sure the "send bounce probe" should be available in that context, because you would want the system to preclude the possibility of the "send bounce probe" action on members who are not bouncing. Providing that action in that context provides the ability to do that and relies on you, the user, to be careful not to. So I don't know if this addition would be a good or a bad thing. I suppose you could get complicated about it, and make sure the system grays out the "Send Bounce Probe" action (if made available in this context) if you've selected any non-bouncing members. 
 
--
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 Re: EarthLink

Chris Jones
 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 04:36 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I've been trying to get Earthlink to unblock us.
Mark; Having carried out some investigation within the group I moderate I have identified a possible gap in Groups.io functionality.

If I sort members by Bouncing one of the Actions I have available is Send Bounce Probe. If, however, I sort by email provider (i.e. by putting something like earthlink in the Search box) I can find all those members with (in this case) earthlink email addresses. This returned 6 members, 3 of whom are Bouncing and 3 not. However, because I sorted by something other than Bouncing, Send Bounce Probe is not one of the available actions.

Would it be possible to make Send Bounce Probe an available action based on whether or not the member concerned has a Bouncing flag, rather than the search route used to find them? When ISP - specific delivery problems are an issue having the ability to do this might prove very useful and less time - consuming.

Chris.


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:44 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
That catastrophe happened about a decade ago on Yahoo Groups.
Shal, this is indeed totally deja-vu. I don't know why I can't remember it. You've explained it to me at least three times before. :)
 
--
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 Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

J,

So I guess I'm not wrapping my head around your suggestion here:
"Perhaps the Pending Subscription notice could somehow be used as an
alternative to the address confirmation email."
In retrospect I'm not so sure that made sense.

It certainly wouldn't for a +subscribe, as the Pending Subscription notice isn't sent until after the confirmation has been acted upon. I was thinking about the web Request flow, but even there I'm not certain exactly when it is sent.

Anybody can easily go to the site and apply with various people's
addresses, but it seems much harder to spoof emails.
So far at least one uses the site manually, one application at a time. Whereas crooks have long had the automation to send emails by the millions, each with an address to and spoofed from their long lists of collected victim addresses.

That catastrophe happened about a decade ago on Yahoo Groups. Some crooks put together the web automation to create new accounts and new groups by the millions, abusing Yahoo Groups servers to blast out spam.

Shal


moderated Re: remove "compare revisions" button when there's only one version of message #suggestion

 

Mark,

I think that showing the buttons, but disabled, is a better indicator
that you can't do something.
For cases like this, where the inability is circumstantial, I concur with J that disabled (and desaturated, or "greyed out") is preferable. Especially in a case like this where the reason it is disabled is manifest on the page: you can see that there's nothing to compare with.

(I wonder if that's a good design rule: ensure that the reason why a control is disabled is visible. Either implicitly, as with the Compare button, or explicitly when needed.)

The opposite case are things like the Admin pages not being present at all for a Member (as opposed to mod or owner). The change of Role is a major change in the semantics of the site, and for most users something that never happens. Leaving something completely out of their control visible but disabled would be pointless and would generate needless questions.

In between are things controlled by moderator permissions. I think these are more like member/mod distinctions (except possibly for mods with the permission to Set Moderator Permissions). If those are currently hidden (I haven't checked) I'd probably leave them that way.

Shal


moderated Re: EarthLink

Termicat
 

I have a charter.net person too and I can not seem to get her to understand that she has to complain to Charter. I am gathering that Spectrum and Charter are related some how.
 
Wish I could get her to complain. She is now using a Gmail email, but I think it is still coming through Charter, not sure.
 
Termi
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...>
Reply-To: <main@beta.groups.io>
To: <main@beta.groups.io>
Sent: 3/5/2019 5:57:38 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] EarthLink

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 05:10 AM, CW Bill Rouse wrote:
My suggestion is to document all of the EarthLink issues and pass them on to groups.io members with EarthLink email accounts
For a long time (at least a year or two), I've warned new members who apply with earthlink accounts to use another email address if they possibly can. I have no earthlink members left, but I do have a couple of mindspring members, having forgotten that it's the same thing.

My bouncing mindspring members have now unbounced, but I have a charter.net member who is continuing to bounce. I don't think that was part of the earthlink list, so it's probably a different issue.
 
--
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 Re: remove "compare revisions" button when there's only one version of message #suggestion

 

I meant disabling it is best. I assume that means you grayed it out. As long as it’s disabled, no matter how. 😊


On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:45 PM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Mark, 

Great. I totally agree that graying out is the best way


On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:26 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Not a big deal, but I just noticed that the "Compare Revisions" button under the revision history of a message (reached by clicking on the blue "Edit" button) doesn't go away even if all revisions have been removed except one.

I've changed it so that it's disabled now if there's only one revision. This matches the behavior when viewing wiki revisions.

Why have the button at all? I used to not display buttons if that functionality wasn't available (like if you didn't have permission to upload a file to the files area, I wouldn't even show the Upload button). But it seems that was confusing for people (where's the Upload button? would be a question I got a lot of). I think that showing the buttons, but disabled, is a better indicator that you can't do something. Happy to be proven wrong, of course.

Thanks,
Mark

--
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


--
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 Re: remove "compare revisions" button when there's only one version of message #suggestion

 

Mark, 

Great. I totally agree that graying out is the best way


On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:26 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Not a big deal, but I just noticed that the "Compare Revisions" button under the revision history of a message (reached by clicking on the blue "Edit" button) doesn't go away even if all revisions have been removed except one.

I've changed it so that it's disabled now if there's only one revision. This matches the behavior when viewing wiki revisions.

Why have the button at all? I used to not display buttons if that functionality wasn't available (like if you didn't have permission to upload a file to the files area, I wouldn't even show the Upload button). But it seems that was confusing for people (where's the Upload button? would be a question I got a lot of). I think that showing the buttons, but disabled, is a better indicator that you can't do something. Happy to be proven wrong, of course.

Thanks,
Mark

--
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 Re: remove "compare revisions" button when there's only one version of message #suggestion

 

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 3:26 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Not a big deal, but I just noticed that the "Compare Revisions" button under the revision history of a message (reached by clicking on the blue "Edit" button) doesn't go away even if all revisions have been removed except one.

I've changed it so that it's disabled now if there's only one revision. This matches the behavior when viewing wiki revisions.

Why have the button at all? I used to not display buttons if that functionality wasn't available (like if you didn't have permission to upload a file to the files area, I wouldn't even show the Upload button). But it seems that was confusing for people (where's the Upload button? would be a question I got a lot of). I think that showing the buttons, but disabled, is a better indicator that you can't do something. Happy to be proven wrong, of course.

Thanks,
Mark

9201 - 9220 of 29169