Date   

moderated Re: Bewildered by log entries #misc

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 08:06 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Click the unsubscribe link in a footer. Then click the resubscribe link in the email we send you telling you you've been unsubscribed. 
I've confirmed that this sequence of actions does lead to those two log entries.

Thanks Mark...appreciate the explanation!

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 09:36 PM, David Grimm wrote:
Why would it say 'left group via web' if they left via an unsubscribe button on an email? Shouldn't it say 'unsubscribed via email'?
When you click the footer link, it doesn't actually unsubscribe you right away. Instead, this page opens in a new browser tab:



This is essentially the same as the dialog box that pops up when you click "Leave Group" on the group's Subscription page. Since the confirmation of your wish to leave is actually finalized on the web, I have no real problem with the first log entry saying "left via web." And of course, some action of this kind is desirable, as it's very easy to click the unsub link in the email by mistake.

The resulting action subsequently sends an email with a "Resume Subscription" link that is good for 7 days. There is no such confirmation dialog when you click this resume link. A page does open, but it's only a notification of success. One could make the case that you have thus resumed "via email" instead of "via web." Not sure changing that would make this sequence of log entries any less mysterious, though.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated No link to second page of RSVP responses on iPhone #bug

Charlie Behnken
 

I appears that on an older iPhone when you have more than 20 RSVP responses the bottom of the page including the link to subsequent pages and the footer line - About, Features, Pricing.... is not visible.   Changing the orientation on an older iPhone, Portrait or Landscape, does not fix the problem. Changing from Grid to List also does not matter.

I say an iPhone because that is what I tested it on - iPhone SE (1st generation) and iPhone 8.  I have not tested it on other vendor's phones.  But I say older iPhone, because I just happened to upgrade to an iPhone 12 mini the following day and it works in Landscape mode on the newer phone.

This is an issue as we just started using RSVP in response to the pandemic to limit participation, and more and more members are doing everything on phones these days.

Charlie


moderated #suggestion Add a global "Select All" for the "Sent Invitations" list #suggestion

Michael C. Brenner
 

A "Select all" [accepted | faiiled | sent ] would be very helpful for tracking invitation status when starting a group.
For example, I invited 137 members from a Yahoogroup and now I need to follow up.
I'd like to select all that are still "sent" so I can easily resend after a week.
"Select all Failed" would all me to clean up the list.
as would an "Export" for all rows. Then I could manage in Excel as well


moderated Re: If member of parent, must still confirm request to join unrestricted subgroup #bug

Duane
 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 11:23 PM, Curt Gowan wrote:
I forgot to say that the members are applying to join subgroups via email to
<subgroup>+subscribe@<parentgroup>.groups.io
Then everything appears to be working normally.  When joining an unrestricted group or subgroup via email, you always need to verify that you intended to join.  I believe that was implemented so that others couldn't submit subscription requests using your email address.

Duane


moderated Re: If member of parent, must still confirm request to join unrestricted subgroup #bug

 

Oops -- I forgot to say that the members are applying to join subgroups via email to
<subgroup>+subscribe@<parentgroup>.groups.io
We use Yahoo groups via email -- we keep our files on a website. 
Plus, our members are not interested in setting up yet another account somewhere.
Thanks for the reply. 
--cg

That doesn't happen in my test subgroups; a member of the parent group (also restricted) can view and click on any of the subgroups (that are visible) and click on Join and they are added at once with just the (custom) Welcome Notice email sent.  My subgroups are also set as fully-unrestricted, with nothing checked in Spam Control.  I didn't test it, but could it be your subgroup's visibility setting may be set to some setting that will cause this? Mine is set to "(sub)Group listed in parent group, messages viewable by parent members", if you happen to have "messages viewable by subgroup members only" then a Join confirmation email may be appropriate, I don't know.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: If member of parent, must still confirm request to join unrestricted subgroup #bug

 

Curt,

However, if member of parent group applies to join a subgroup, they get an email requiring them to confirm.
That doesn't happen in my test subgroups; a member of the parent group (also restricted) can view and click on any of the subgroups (that are visible) and click on Join and they are added at once with just the (custom) Welcome Notice email sent.  My subgroups are also set as fully-unrestricted, with nothing checked in Spam Control.  I didn't test it, but could it be your subgroup's visibility setting may be set to some setting that will cause this? Mine is set to "(sub)Group listed in parent group, messages viewable by parent members", if you happen to have "messages viewable by subgroup members only" then a Join confirmation email may be appropriate, I don't know.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated If member of parent, must still confirm request to join unrestricted subgroup #bug

 

Parent group is restricted. Subgroup is not -- no boxes checked under Spam Control.
Owner of parent group can add them to any subgroup. They get a notice telling how to opt-out. Excellent.
However, if member of parent group applies to join a subgroup, they get an email requiring them to confirm.
For us, this obviates most of the value of subgroups.
(Or am I doing something wrong in the settings?)
Thanks,
--cg


moderated Re: Bewildered by log entries #misc

Duane
 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 08:36 PM, David Grimm wrote:
Why would it say 'left group via web' if they left via an unsubscribe button on an email? Shouldn't it say 'unsubscribed via email'?
That's one place where it gets a bit confusing.  Even though they clicked on a link in an email, it goes to the site(web) for them to verify it.

Duane


moderated Re: Bewildered by log entries #misc

David Grimm
 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 08:06 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Click the unsubscribe link in a footer. Then click the resubscribe link in the email we send you telling you you've been unsubscribed. 
 
Which then raises the questions  - Why did I not get that email when I unsubscribed my test account via the web? and Why would it say 'left group via web' if they left via an unsubscribe button on an email? Shouldn't it say 'unsubscribed via email'?

Dave


moderated Re: Bewildered by log entries #misc

 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 10:31 AM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
Folks -- Some disconcerting log entries have recently been reported in GMF. It involves the following sequence:

<email address> left via web
<same email address> resumed membership via web

Click the unsubscribe link in a footer. Then click the resubscribe link in the email we send you telling you you've been unsubscribed. 

If they didn't click the unsubscribe button, perhaps they forwarded an email to someone else who did click the unsubscribe button? There may be a rare case of an anti-spam system automatically clicking these unsubscribe links (and then also clicking the verification link on the web page).

Hope this helps.
Mark 


moderated Re: Make sequence of mods receipt of pending member notice more consistent #suggestion

 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 04:28 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm sure you know the answer to both of these, but are asking "in the voice of" the confused group owners, in order to emphasize the inconsistency.
Yes, exactly. They were all rhetorical questions.

I'll paraphrase the saying: let not the consistent be the enemy of the practical.
 Which is exactly why I tried to emphasize that I don't want consistency for consistency's sake. I want it because the current inconsistent situation is a hot, confusing mess.
--
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: Make sequence of mods receipt of pending member notice more consistent #suggestion

 

J,

I'm sure you know the answer to both of these, but are asking "in the voice of" the confused group owners, in order to emphasize the inconsistency.

Why do you sometimes see an NC member, and sometimes not?
The NC appears only for unconfirmed email addresses.

I believe that can only be seen for members who joined/requested via the web.

For those who joined/requested by email, their response to the +subscribe confirmation also confirms their email address. So you (the group manager) either don't see them at all or you see them as confirmed.

Why are you sometimes notified of an application to your group right
away, and sometimes not until the member confirms?
That was the prior message.

My suggestions are either to (a) ALWAYS require a confirmation of
interest in joining a group, regardless of whether the application is
via email or via the web; and/or (b) NEVER or ALWAYS notifiy the group
owner before the member confirms.
I'll paraphrase the saying: let not the consistent be the enemy of the practical.

I think option (a) is a worse experience for members joining by web. Especially those who joined by web because they're having issues with email.

The NEVER clause of (b) is a worse experience for members and mods because mods can't help web applicants who might otherwise be helped.

The ALWAYS clause of (b) is a worse experience for mods who may have to sort through scores, hundreds, or thousands of bot-generated +subscribe requests that would otherwise have been culled by the confirmation requirement.

Shal
Dispelling hobgoblins since 2007


moderated Re: Make sequence of mods receipt of pending member notice more consistent #suggestion

 

Here are a couple of other/alternate suggestions. The main problem for me is the lack of consistency, and not just for consistency's sake, but because it is confusing to group owners currently. Why do you sometimes see an NC member, and sometimes not? Why are you sometimes notified of an application to your group right away, and sometimes not until the member confirms?

My suggestions are either to (a) ALWAYS require a confirmation of interest in joining a group, regardless of whether the application is via email or via the web; and/or (b) NEVER or ALWAYS notifiy the group owner before the member confirms.
--
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: Make sequence of mods receipt of pending member notice more consistent #suggestion

 

Shal,

I like all of those suggestions.

And as an added bonus, let’s please clarify the language. People with existing gio accounts DO currently have to respond to an email asking them to “confirm” their request to join a group. Yet every time this issue comes up, we’re distracted by shouts of “no, people with existing accounts don’t have to confirm” or “that’s not a confirmation message.”

Well, it walks like a confirmation message snd it quacks like a confirmation message. It’s identical in every way, shape, and form to the “real” (yuck, yuck) confirmation message. The title is the same and the message body is the same. So if we have to call them something besides a confirmation message to avoid being pedantically corrected every time, let’s distinguish the two in some way. “Verify” your irterest instead of “confirm”? Something, anything. Otherwise we are forced to refer to two identical objects differently simply because they were generated by distinct processes.

On top of that, because of the (incorrect) statements here that current account holders don’t have to confirm, some group owners wrongly state in their home page that “only if this your first gio group, you will have to respond to an email to confirm” your interest. This is particularly a-factual for restricted groups with a pending member questionnaire as well. Only non-current account holders are warned that they must look for and reply to TWO messages if they happen to apply via email.
On Dec 6, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

J,

It's déjà vu all over again.

Case 1: member with an existing gio account applies via email --> mod
does NOT receive the pending notice unftil after the member confirms
(Possibly this is intentional?)
...
Case 3: person withot an existing gio account applies via email ...
I believe it is intentional, because hobgoblins and spambots. That is, all email commands (except +help and +owner) require confirmation before they do anything, +subscribe follows the majority.
https://groups.io/helpcenter/membersmanual/1/additional-information/standard-group-email-addresses

The intent is to keep the group managers (and unrestricted groups) from being flooded by spambot-generated +subscribe requests.

I can see two improvements that could be made.

1) Eliminate the confirmation requirement when the From address passes reasonable authentication criteria. For +subscribe the group managers can be notified of the request immediately (as with web requests).

Replace the request message with a notice that the command was received (where appropriate). This would be a boon for all of the email commands.

2) Maybe notify the moderators immediately in Case 1. While it is possible that a spambot may have spoofed an already registered address, it may be sufficiently less likely as to not represent the problem that general addresses would.

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: Make sequence of mods receipt of pending member notice more consistent #suggestion

 

J,

It's déjà vu all over again.

Case 1: member with an existing gio account applies via email --> mod
does NOT receive the pending notice unftil after the member confirms
(Possibly this is intentional?)
...
Case 3: person withot an existing gio account applies via email ...
I believe it is intentional, because hobgoblins and spambots. That is, all email commands (except +help and +owner) require confirmation before they do anything, +subscribe follows the majority.
https://groups.io/helpcenter/membersmanual/1/additional-information/standard-group-email-addresses

The intent is to keep the group managers (and unrestricted groups) from being flooded by spambot-generated +subscribe requests.

I can see two improvements that could be made.

1) Eliminate the confirmation requirement when the From address passes reasonable authentication criteria. For +subscribe the group managers can be notified of the request immediately (as with web requests).

Replace the request message with a notice that the command was received (where appropriate). This would be a boon for all of the email commands.

2) Maybe notify the moderators immediately in Case 1. While it is possible that a spambot may have spoofed an already registered address, it may be sufficiently less likely as to not represent the problem that general addresses would.

Shal


moderated Re: Bewildered by log entries #misc

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 09:11 PM, David Grimm wrote:
I can provide email addresses of the three members who did this in my group, if it helps.
Moi aussi, but from a different group.

Chris


moderated Re: Topic count still incorrect (too low, sometimes goes negative) #bug

 

Right, it's coming back to me now! You were the first to report this, and it has to do with the topic count after splitting a topic.
--
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: Bewildered by log entries #misc

David Grimm
 

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 01:31 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
I have personally never witnessed the "resume membership" thing unless the person involved had previously "reported a message as spam;" but this same left-and-resumed sequence has since been verified in the logs of a second group.
I can provide email addresses of the three members who did this in my group, if it helps.

Dave


moderated Re: Topic count still incorrect (too low, sometimes goes negative) #bug

Gilbert Coville
 

Here are the step-by-step instructions on how to reproduce this:

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/74055557#24922

Gilbert

On Dec 4, 2020, at 10:05 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

This group
https://groups.io/g/IMDCD/topics
shows "1 topic" on the home page but there are three topics. Before the addition of two topics, it was showing "-2" topics.
This bug (negative topic count) was mentioned years ago and I don't remember what happened with it, but it's evidently still around.


moderated Bewildered by log entries #misc

Bruce Bowman
 

Folks -- Some disconcerting log entries have recently been reported in GMF. It involves the following sequence:

<email address> left via web
<same email address> resumed membership via web

The unsettling thing about this is that the group is Restricted, and the owners do not report reviewing a new join application or sending a subsequent invitation or otherwise allowing these people to rejoin. I have personally never witnessed the "resume membership" thing unless the person involved had previously "reported a message as spam;" but this same left-and-resumed sequence has since been verified in the logs of a second group.

Is there a default Member Notice of some kind that contains a renew link? If so, why do they get back in without going through Pending status? Generally, I'm not aware of any GIO feature that would allow someone to resume group membership "via web." Rejoin yes...resume, no.

Any insight into what member activities could produce this would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Bruce

2841 - 2860 of 29680