1. main@beta.groups.io
   Date   
moderated Re: Messages to +owner being wrongly routed to the whole group

Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 08:17 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
It all comes down to the decision by Mark to use + as the only
distinguisher of an owners message was a poor one.
Sorry; I think that is unfair. If + is supposed to be acceptable character under the terms of RFC 2821 then using it was a perfectly reasonable decision. The fact that a particular combination of (apparently any) email client, mail provider (BT) and "traffic handler" corrupts addresses with + in them does not negate Mark's original decision.

I have in the non - recent past sent messages to a +owner address without mishap, but clearly I have no idea about what might be responsible for the change in behaviour. I still have some hope that Peter Martinez' enquiry via "BT Community" might bear fruit, although a little of that hope is starting to fade. If other mail service providers allow + addresses to work uncorrupted, then so should BT (etc) under all circumstances.

Having said that I agree that most subscribers are "use by email client" and expecting them to use their mail provider's web UI is probably unrealistic.

Mark; are you in any position whereby you could chase the errant provider(s) from your perspective?

Chris
moderated Re: Messages to +owner being wrongly routed to the whole group

Shal Farley
 

Peter,

Groups.io may be the only organisation that has chosen to embed a "+"
within leftsides of addresses within it's own domain, ...
Gmail is another.

It uses + in the user part as the lead-in for an alias address. That feature won't work properly with messages sent from a synchronoss afflicted service.

so we may get no support for any campaign to get it fixed properly.
You can add to your leverage by telling them that they're breaking a Gmail feature.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/22370?hl=en
(the "Use Gmail aliases" section at the bottom of the page)

Shal
moderated Re: Messages to +owner being wrongly routed to the whole group

Dave Sergeant
 

Um, the idea of btinternet users only posting via the web interface is
surely a non starter. I have no statistics but I sense on the groups I
moderate that probably 80% of users, including a LOT of btinternet
users, only use email and most have never been anywhere near the web
interface.

It all comes down to the decision by Mark to use + as the only
distinguisher of an owners message was a poor one.

Dave

On 25 Sep 2019 at 18:38, Shal Farley wrote:

So the only two actions I can think of would be to either force the
message to Pending, and let the mods deal with it, or reject the
message, with a message text saying that btinternet users must post via
the web interface, not via SMTP client applications.

http://davesergeant.com
moderated Re: Messages to +owner being wrongly routed to the whole group

Peter Martinez <Peter.Martinez@...>
 

Mark/Shal:

The fact that gmail ignores dots in the leftside of email addresses, is not relevant to this discussion. Gmail ONLY do this on emails coming into the gmail domain, and that's reasonable. This practice doesn't affect emails going to any other domain.

We are talking here only about interpreting emails coming into the groups.io domain. The format of the leftside on such emails is entirely at the discretion of groups.io. If groups.io assign special meaning to a leftside with an embedded + or an embedded dot, that doesn't interact in any way with what gmail might do with their incoming emails.

The problem in this case is that we know there are en-route hosts that (illegally) truncate leftsides of emails in transit, treating a "+" as marking the end of the leftside. OK, the proper solution is to get these en-route hosts to cease this practice, but what we are discussing here now is the possibility that groups.io could do something to avoid this bug (because we have a very low expectation of getting it fixed properly). Groups.io may be the only organisation that has chosen to embed a "+" within leftsides of addresses within it's own domain, so we may get no support for any campaign to get it fixed properly.

It shouldn't be difficult to implement. Just amend the code that looks for a "+ so it will accept a dot as marking the start of a commandword. If there ARE presently leftsides assigned within @groups.io that contain embedded dots, then its not as simple, but Mark will know how to deal with that.

As a trial, you could just ADD a process to detect a dot AS WELL AS "+" in the part of the code that parses for email commands. We can then check that groupname(dot)command works and solves the problem and there are no unexpected side-effects. The rest of the users carry on as before. Then it's just a case of amending the documentation and waiting until there are no remaining users who remember the purpose of a "+", then quietly remove the "+" from the code.

Needless to say I AM progressing this problem with binternet. I have had a fault report reference number for a week now but no-one has come back to me yet ...

I don't like the idea of patching the groups.io server to detect "synchronoss" and/or "btinternet" within headers and attempt a kludge. This could cause no end of confusion if btinternet solve the problem at their end, or change to another subcontractor. They have only been using synchronoss for a couple of years. Prior to that they were using Critical Path. This change may have been the onset of this problem of course!

regards
Peter
moderated Re: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

J_Catlady
 

Mark,

Thanks. I would make the following changes. I am including here the phrase "via email," which currently is appended to the log entry (but not included in your message) if the message was sent via email, and is the main source of confusion. I'm assuming the phrase "via web" is appending if the message was posted via web, and in which case, you can substitute "via web" in my suggested changes below. If you can't move that phrase (either "via email" or "via web") to directly after "sent message" (which would be my first choice but perhaps is not practical without major changes), you can clarify parsing by adding and deleting commas, as in the below:

1. change
without any tags, has been asked to update subject via email
to
without any tags and has been asked to add tag(s), via email 

preference would be to put "via email" after "sent message" and then change the rest to
without any tags, has been asked to add tags

2. change
with a tag that only moderators can use, has been asked to update subject via email
to
with a tag that only moderators can use and has been to remove tag, via email

preference would be to put "via email" after "sent message" and then change the rest to
with a tag that only moderators can use, has been asked to remove tag

3. change
with a new tag, has been asked to update subject via email
to
with a disallowed new tag and has been asked to remove tag, via email

preference would be to put "via email" after "sent message" and then change the rest fo
with a disallowed new tag, has been asked to remove tag

--
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: #wishlist Ability to Hide Topics/Posts #suggestion

Shal Farley
 

Bryce,

I wrote:
In the More menu under each message is a Report This Message item which can be used to report the message to the group moderators or to Groups.io Support. Maybe that function should have an option (available only to moderators) to also hide the reported message from the view of members.

After Re-reading the prior topic, and some consideration, I retract my suggestion.

Instead I think that Hide Topic (and possibly Hide Message) should be a standalone item in the More menu, equal to the existing Moderate Topic and Lock Topic items. I think that is clearer, and makes it easy to Unhide the topic later, just as one may Unmoderate or Unlock it.

I found a nice fontawesome icon for it: eye-slash:

Shal
moderated Re: Messages to +owner being wrongly routed to the whole group

Shal Farley
 

Mark,


I'm wary (used it right this time Shal!) of changing this, ...
Indeed. ;-)

I too do not favor changing it.

Or even aliasing it. I thought of that but realized it wouldn't solve the problem - the people who need to use the alias wouldn't know about it. That way lies only more confusion.

If I had to do it over, I'd probably special case this to handle it,
but it seems to only confuse people a few times a year.
I'm not sure what you're thinking, but I thought perhaps you could notice when receiving a message:

IF (message delivered to Groups.io by btinternet.com) AND
(Received chain includes synchronoss.net)
THEN
Do something different.

The question is what to do. I initially thought you could look to the header To and/or Cc fields to determine if there was a command and what it was, but I think some of the messages I looked at had neither. Probably cases of Bcc, but I'm not sure about that.

So the only two actions I can think of would be to either force the message to Pending, and let the mods deal with it, or reject the message, with a message text saying that btinternet users must post via the web interface, not via SMTP client applications.

But either of those are pretty onerous for the 99.9% use case of a simple message posting. So maybe accept the message for posting if there is a To or CC that includes the group posting address without command.

Shal
moderated Re: notification on update

Glenn Glazer
 

Many thanks,  Mark!

Best, 

Glenn 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 16:57 Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:28 PM Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:
When we upload a file, there is a checkbox for notifying the list. There is not one on the update window.  Would it be possible to add this checkbox and accompanying notification so that I can let members know when I've updated our files?

I have added this.

Cheers,
Mark 
moderated Re: Messages to +owner being wrongly routed to the whole group

Mark Fletcher
 

Late replying to this.

I'm wary (used it right this time Shal!) of changing this, especially to a period. It's not like periods aren't interpreted differently by different mail servers. Gmail, for example, ignores all periods in email addresses. Next time you send an email to a friend with a gmail account, feel free to sprinkle some periods in the left side of their email address. Note that we do not ignore periods, even for Gmail accounts. If I had to do it over, I'd probably special case this to handle it, but it seems to only confuse people a few times a year.

Mark
moderated Re: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

Mark Fletcher
 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 8:14 AM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I just found the following log entry in the group activity log and had no idea what it meant:

"[xyz member] sent message "[message subject]" with a new tag, has been asked to update subject via email"

There are 3 associated activity log messages:

"LogLine": "{{(ActivityUserDisplay .Activity true $.Group)}} sent message \"{{.Activity.Subject}}\" without any tags, has been asked to update subject"
"LogLine": "{{(ActivityUserDisplay .Activity true $.Group)}} sent message \"{{.Activity.Subject}}\" with a tag that only moderators can use, has been asked to update subject"
"LogLine": "{{(ActivityUserDisplay .Activity true $.Group)}} sent message \"{{.Activity.Subject}}\" with a new tag, has been asked to update subject"

When someone gets one of these messages, it contains a link to edit the message, much like a pending message (the same code is used, in fact). This is so they don't have to send the message again.

Happy to change the wording to make all these more clear.

Mark
 
moderated Re: notification on update

Mark Fletcher
 

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 3:28 PM Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:
When we upload a file, there is a checkbox for notifying the list. There is not one on the update window.  Would it be possible to add this checkbox and accompanying notification so that I can let members know when I've updated our files?

I have added this.

Cheers,
Mark 
moderated Re: #wishlist Ability to Hide Topics/Posts #suggestion

Shal Farley
 

Bryce,


... I would like a feature to able to Hide Topics/Messages.

I think this is a good suggestion, as I don't think the feature exists (yet).
In the More menu under each message is a Report This Message item which can be used to report the message to the group moderators or to Groups.io Support. Maybe that function should have an option (available only to moderators) to also hide the reported message from the view of members.

See also Hide Topic Function for an earlier request of this feature.

Shal
moderated Re: delete old messages

KWKloeber
 

<<<>It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of someone who has participated in a discussion group." >>>

Removing posts (‘er, messages) is not equal to hunting down and removing ALL traces of a member.

Why are y’all arguing practicality?  That’s up to Mark and seems the type discussion he asked NOT become a never-ending on beta. Speak how to improve a suggestion, not why Mark can’t do something. 

Da dum, stepping off the soapbox. 
moderated #wishlist Ability to Hide Topics/Posts #suggestion

Bryce Weathersby
 

Howdy,.,. I am fairly new to Groups.io so this may have been discussed or hashed already, but I would like a feature to able to Hide Topics/Messages. An example is we have a former member of our group who posted some things that may wind up in legal battles, so we would like to hold the messages, but not make them visible on the site anymore, so deleting them is not the option we want to follow. Any help would be appreciated.
moderated Re: delete old messages

J_Catlady
 

Shal,

Totally disagree but I’m done here.


On Sep 25, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

J,


It is "hopelessly impractical" in the sense that there will always be cases where it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

The only impractical cases I know of I excluded already [beta #22312].
"Hopelessly impractical" is your claim to defend.


To make a promise in the TOU, that promise must be possible to uphold in ALL cases.

That's like saying that a car warranty must be upheld under ALL road conditions. Ludicrous.

I see no problem with ensuring that the TOS specifically applies only to the messages (and perhaps files and photos) that the person him/herself posted under a given account.


("user leaves, requests deletion of all posts 10 years later"; etc.).

Each account has a fixed posterid value that applies across all groups' messages. That, or the account's email address, can certainly be used to find the user's messages regardless of when the request is made.

To quote Mark, in this thread:
"my lawyers interpreted it as I did not have to delete someone's messages in a group when they deleted their account. It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of someone who has participated in a discussion group."

I never claimed it was a legal requirement.

Nor would I want it to apply just because someone left a group or deleted an account. Deletion at will is already implemented, I only suggest that the TOS recognize and establish that as a desirable policy.

The OP requests that the existing one-by-one deletion be extended to a bulk feature that a group moderator can use. To me this does not seem like an impractical request.

As to "all traces" I agree that's impractical (e.g. my cited exclusions). But it isn't what I or the OP has asked for and shouldn't be what the TOS promises.

Shal


--
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: delete old messages

Shal Farley
 

J,


It is "hopelessly impractical" in the sense that there will always be cases where it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement.

The only impractical cases I know of I excluded already [beta #22312].
"Hopelessly impractical" is your claim to defend.


To make a promise in the TOU, that promise must be possible to uphold in ALL cases.

That's like saying that a car warranty must be upheld under ALL road conditions. Ludicrous.

I see no problem with ensuring that the TOS specifically applies only to the messages (and perhaps files and photos) that the person him/herself posted under a given account.


("user leaves, requests deletion of all posts 10 years later"; etc.).

Each account has a fixed posterid value that applies across all groups' messages. That, or the account's email address, can certainly be used to find the user's messages regardless of when the request is made.

To quote Mark, in this thread:
"my lawyers interpreted it as I did not have to delete someone's messages in a group when they deleted their account. It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of someone who has participated in a discussion group."

I never claimed it was a legal requirement.

Nor would I want it to apply just because someone left a group or deleted an account. Deletion at will is already implemented, I only suggest that the TOS recognize and establish that as a desirable policy.

The OP requests that the existing one-by-one deletion be extended to a bulk feature that a group moderator can use. To me this does not seem like an impractical request.

As to "all traces" I agree that's impractical (e.g. my cited exclusions). But it isn't what I or the OP has asked for and shouldn't be what the TOS promises.

Shal
moderated Re: delete old messages

J_Catlady
 

The EU is not requiring it.


On Sep 25, 2019, at 12:06 PM, Dave Wade <dave.g4ugm@...> wrote:

Since when was something being "hopelessly impractical” ever a reason for the EU not to mandate it…

… also if you delete your Facebook account all posts, likes, comments will be removed. If Facebook can manage it groups.io can.

 

Dave

(Not I am not commenting on the actually legality of keeping the info)

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: 25 September 2019 19:33
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] delete old messages

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

Being able to provide one, two, or 100 examples where it was practical obviously does not prove its practical in general.

 

But it does show that it is not "hopelessly impractical" in general.

That's not what you need to show. It is "hopelessly impractical" in the sense that there will always be cases where it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. To make a promise in the TOU, that promise must be possible to uphold in ALL cases. Not just the few that you pull out of a hat. This has zero to do with my not liking your examples (in fact, they were TLDR, because it doesn't even matter what they are).

I don't need to show that it's "hopelessly impractical" in all cases. I only need to show that there will always be cases, no matter how many or few, where it would be hopelessly impractical to implement ("user leaves, requests deletion of all posts 10 years later"; etc.).
 
--
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: delete old messages

Dave Wade
 

Since when was something being "hopelessly impractical” ever a reason for the EU not to mandate it…

… also if you delete your Facebook account all posts, likes, comments will be removed. If Facebook can manage it groups.io can.

 

Dave

(Not I am not commenting on the actually legality of keeping the info)

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: 25 September 2019 19:33
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] delete old messages

 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

Being able to provide one, two, or 100 examples where it was practical obviously does not prove its practical in general.

 

But it does show that it is not "hopelessly impractical" in general.

That's not what you need to show. It is "hopelessly impractical" in the sense that there will always be cases where it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. To make a promise in the TOU, that promise must be possible to uphold in ALL cases. Not just the few that you pull out of a hat. This has zero to do with my not liking your examples (in fact, they were TLDR, because it doesn't even matter what they are).

I don't need to show that it's "hopelessly impractical" in all cases. I only need to show that there will always be cases, no matter how many or few, where it would be hopelessly impractical to implement ("user leaves, requests deletion of all posts 10 years later"; etc.).
 
--
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: change verbiage on log entry for forbidden new tag

J_Catlady
 

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 09:34 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
As for whether the log entry should be reworded, I'm ambivalent.
At the very least, the phrase "via email" should not be separated from what it refers to. It's very confusing. Thanks for the other info. I would still like to see the message the user receives. But I can do my own test.
 
--
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: delete old messages

J_Catlady
 

To quote Mark, in this thread:
"my lawyers interpreted it as I did not have to delete someone's messages in a group when they deleted their account. It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of someone who has participated in a discussion group."
Impractical, period.
--
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
6201 - 6220 of 28342