Date   

Re: Members Removed for Marking Messages as spam AUTO-Message suggested modification

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 06:01 AM, ro-esp wrote:
In most email interfaces I've used the Display Name is more prominent
than the actual address, so I think this would address the concern.
You lost me here...
When you see something like:

             The Groups.io Team <xyz+owner@groups.io>

do you immediately think, "Oh, that's a message from the owner that they sent," or, "That's an automated message"?

Most of us will think the latter because, "The Groups.io Team," the display name, is what is considered the most indicative of the origin, regardless of the actual address shown with it.  An alternate display name is often used as a mechanism to differentiate such.
 
--

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

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


Re: Members Removed for Marking Messages as spam AUTO-Message suggested modification

ro-esp
 

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 09:31 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

> Since there is no owner/moderator activity involved, it would be
> better to have it read something like "system@groups.io" as sender

My suggestion would be:

From: The Groups.io Team <groupname+owner@groups.io>
Sorry, you seem to have missed my point: I want to make it clear that the process is automatic, and that the unsubbing was NOT a deliberate action by some moderator/owner.

That would use a Display Name reflecting the signature within the
message, while preserving the From address so that any reply from the
(former) member will go to the group owners/mods.
I don't see anything wrong in having replies to such notifications going to the moderators

In most email interfaces I've used the Display Name is more prominent
than the actual address, so I think this would address the concern.
You lost me here...

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

 

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:31 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Then the miscreant pauses the flood and asks the victim to ransom their email address from uselessness.
The plot thickens! :-)
 
--
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


Re: Members Removed for Marking Messages as spam AUTO-Message suggested modification

 

Dave,

I know the reason Mark has added this process to groups.io but why
does nobody else do similar?
You asked this before:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16403
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16418

Shal


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

Duane
 

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 01:30 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
The concerns expressed about the potential for a very remote possibility do not warrant active defenses.
I believe that's the intent of Mark's post that I referred to.  He'll decide if the technical aspects fit his needs/wants for the site, so I don't see any reason for us to add further 'red herrings' to the original idea.  When you say "this is a waste of time" it goes directly against what Mark said, in my opinion.

Duane


Re: Members Removed for Marking Messages as spam AUTO-Message suggested modification

 

Ronaldo,

Since there is no owner/moderator activity involved, it would be
better to have it read something like "system@groups.io" as sender
My suggestion would be:

From: The Groups.io Team <groupname+owner@groups.io>

That would use a Display Name reflecting the signature within the message, while preserving the From address so that any reply from the (former) member will go to the group owners/mods.

In most email interfaces I've used the Display Name is more prominent than the actual address, so I think this would address the concern.

Shal


moderated Re: Custom invitation message changes the Member Notice

 

This is an issue I’ve brought up several times: there is strange logic (or possible no logic) surrounding which notices can be chosen at the time of the action vs which are chosen as “active” and are sent without real-time choice. I’ve previously suggested that all notices for actions under moderator control (which excludes only “leave group,” “joined”  in unrestricted groups, etc.) should have a drop down available at the time of the action. Currently, for example, removing someone from a group, or rejecting a subscription, requires mods to determine which (if any) notice is marked “active”, then (usually) move the “active” designation to the notice they want to use for the particular case, then (often) move it back to what it was. This makes no sense to me and I think only actions with no moderator real-time control should use “active” thd wsy it’s currently used. 


On Apr 27, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Barry Winer via Groups.Io <bmwiner@...> wrote:

I agree with Bruce and noticed the same as I was getting my group setup for launch last week.  Hopefully adding on (versus being a non-sequitur) to that point with this but I'd like to suggest some basic logic be coded in to allow situationally-specific member notices.

As an example, I realized early (after getting help on the GMF group) that you can only have one notice "active" at a time else any new member will get more than one email upon joining (assuming you have 2 or more notices and at least 2 are marked "active").  Ideally, I'd have loved to haven been able to "if/then" those notices.  I.e., a new member who'd been directly added would receive a notice starting:

"Hello and welcome!  You've been added to the XYZ listserv..."

Versus a new member approved via their request:

"Hello and thank you for requesting membership to the XYZ listserv. You have been approved and..."

Thank you,
Barry

--
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: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

 

J,

This payload of the original message is the only thing anyone in this
thread has pointed to as the real downside.
An error of omission on my part.

Even without a payload, the misdirected return message represents a means of DoS attack against a member by flooding their Inbox with these notifications. Then the miscreant pauses the flood and asks the victim to ransom their email address from uselessness.

Shal


moderated Re: Custom invitation message changes the Member Notice

Barry_M
 

I agree with Bruce and noticed the same as I was getting my group setup for launch last week.  Hopefully adding on (versus being a non-sequitur) to that point with this but I'd like to suggest some basic logic be coded in to allow situationally-specific member notices.

As an example, I realized early (after getting help on the GMF group) that you can only have one notice "active" at a time else any new member will get more than one email upon joining (assuming you have 2 or more notices and at least 2 are marked "active").  Ideally, I'd have loved to haven been able to "if/then" those notices.  I.e., a new member who'd been directly added would receive a notice starting:

"Hello and welcome!  You've been added to the XYZ listserv..."

Versus a new member approved via their request:

"Hello and thank you for requesting membership to the XYZ listserv. You have been approved and..."

Thank you,
Barry


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 4/26/2019 23:40, Marv Waschke wrote:
I should add that I fully defer to the arguments that locked threads are necessary and a user friendly response is desirable, but I won't endorse a solution that relaxes security because Groups.io is too obscure to be worth defending. I will wait for a solution that maintains the current level of security and supports the desired functionality. Put some heart into both security and functionality.

IMHO, the problem with this line of reasoning is seeing groups.io as a single thing. Such an attack would target a single group because a locked thread belongs to one and only one group. If the customized lock message was a preference that each group could turn on and off, those that benefit from the feature could use it even as other groups turned it off as they found necessary.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:55 PM, Duane wrote:
Please see https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/20525

Duane
Sorry, Duane, this is a legitimate discussion.  And it has nothing to do with shooting down a suggestion.   There are technical issues that have been under discussion and that deserve airing.

I stand by everything I've said.   The concerns expressed about the potential for a very remote possibility do not warrant active defenses.  The removal of the original message from any "This topic is locked" message is more than adequate to address any concern expressed so far.

You don't need, nor, for that matter, do you want, "Fort Knox to protect a broken bicycle."   That's precisely what the initial objections were, and even if the original message were to be included in a locked message, still are.   This is just not a part of the "spamming repertoire" as it currently exists and is very unlikely to ever become a part of it.
 
--

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

     Presenting the willfully ignorant with facts is the very definition of casting pearls before swine.

              ~ Brian Vogel


moderated Re: Custom invitation message changes the Member Notice

 

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 10:05 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
The invite is a notice type already. 
...but does not behave as some of the others, where you can pick which one you want at the time of the invitation. So maybe that's all that needs to be changed.
 
--
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: Custom invitation message changes the Member Notice

 

Oops, I just checked and this is already the case. The invite is a notice type already. 
--
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: Custom invitation message changes the Member Notice

 

Although the invite is not really a member notice yet, possibly (at some point in the future) it could be made into one, and there could be more than one invite "notice" per group so that you could choose which one to use at the time of sending, as with some of the other notice types.

I agree that the current situation is a bit of a PITA. 
--
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 Custom invitation message changes the Member Notice

Bruce Bowman
 

Sometimes when I send a group invitation, I change the canned wording to customize it for the invitee. After sending the invitation, I then have to return to my Member Notices and edit it back to what it was.

I would be grateful if edits to the inserted text in the invitation screen did NOT automatically modify the Member Notice.

Thanks for your consideration.

Bruce


moderated Re: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

 

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 08:55 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
That payload exists today, and could be exploited and would be if it were worth the effort.
 
No, it does not.
Shal,

That's true, but  I agree with everything else Brian said, and the "payload" need not exist if a polite rejection message were to be send without the inclusion of the original message. What is the payoff in sending a "This topic is locked" message, even if to servers besides the miscreant's? This payload of the original message is the only thing anyone in this thread has pointed to as the real downside. I do see that it would be a downside. A spammer could send an actual spam message, which would then be sent to the spoofed email address in the form of a rejection notice. But not if the rejection notice doesn't include it.
 
--
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: User-friendly message rejection after attempt to post to a locked thread #suggestion

Marv Waschke
 

I should add that I fully defer to the arguments that locked threads are necessary and a user friendly response is desirable, but I won't endorse a solution that relaxes security because Groups.io is too obscure to be worth defending. I will wait for a solution that maintains the current level of security and supports the desired functionality. Put some heart into both security and functionality.


Re: Members Removed for Marking Messages as spam AUTO-Message suggested modification

ro-esp
 

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:54 PM, Ken Schweizer wrote:


Another confusing factor with the Auto-Message is that it appears to be coming
from the Owner of the member's group rather than from GROUPS.IO itself as can
be seen in the FAQ sample message. In our case that was a major factor in the
member's reaction. I find it unusual and confusing for the "email group
service" to send a message in the name of one of its groups.
Yes. Since there is no owner/moderator activity involved, it would be better to have it read something like "system@groups.io" as sender

groetjes, Ronaldo


Re: Members Removed for Marking Messages as spam AUTO-Message suggested modification

Dave Sergeant
 

As well as the points already discussed, it is worth pointing out that
the process of being removed for marking as spam and the resulting
email exchange is as far as I know unique to groups.io. I know of no
other email list service, or forum for that matter, that does this. So
to get a strange email, from an address that in itself is different
from normal list postings, with this rather strange content and
instructions can only be confusing, even to those who are computer
savvy.

I know the reason Mark has added this process to groups.io but why does
nobody else do similar?

Dave

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: "Likes" revisited

dave w
 

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 02:38 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
Another head scratcher.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it doesn't go with the medium.  It's an insane workaround.  
The same could be, and is, said for inane sig lines and witticisms some think are humorous in messages.
Another reason I have never subscribed via email- either here at at Y* on near 30 groups of interest.

My only reason for reading this thread is the apparent banning of an inane feature, that, ostensibly does nothing to or for groups anyway. It massages an ego but you have to look for it on the site.

I've been waiting to see some effort to quantify likes- my own or others- as there's no other way to highlight useful/ efficient/ accurate information contained in or attached to messages, other than copying each and every piece of documentation/ text out to a separate dbase.

FWIW, contrarily,
d

8261 - 8280 of 29169