Date   

moderated Re: #bug Apostrophes in Message footers #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:09 AM Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@...> wrote:
Apostrophes in Message footers appear as:
&#39;

Admin > Message Formatting
is set to:
Plain Text Only

This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated #bug Apostrophes in Message footers #bug

Michael Pavan
 

Apostrophes in Message footers appear as:
&#39;

Admin > Message Formatting
is set to:
Plain Text Only


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

Ken,

Although it's best to ignore emailed (and phone) spam wouldn't a
spam-puter get back an >*undeliverable*< message if the email *WAS
NOT* received and trapped (i.e., it was sent to an invalid e-dress)?
Beta really isn't the venue for lessons in how internet mail works (nothing here Mark doesn't know), but that's not quite how it works.

What the spam-puter "gets back" is either a "success" code (the message was successfully transferred to the receiving server) or an "error" code (the message was not received or was not accepted)*. There isn't an option for the receiving service to give no result at all - that would break the protocol (SMTP).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_Protocol

In the case of a failure to deliver the message, the sender's email service (its "mailer daemon" or "postmaster") will likely put a failure notice in the user's inbox. Though formed like an email message, the failure notice wasn't "received" from anywhere outside of the sending service itself.

And if ignored and sent to a spam box (and was subsequently deleted)
wouldn't the spam-puter receive a spam notice (like gio does which
would then confirm it was a valid e-dress)?
Generally not.

The feedback mechanism by which Groups.io is informed of messages marked as "spam" isn't a part of the standard email protocol. It is a separate mechanism and requires that sender and receiver establish a "contract" (relationship of trust) before setting it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback_loop_(email)

Shal
* There are gradations of success and error codes, as well as an accompanying "one-liner" human readable text. But that doesn't change the explanation in a meaningful way.


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Marc S. Glasser
 

I'd be fine with an option: default to how nonmember messages are handled now, but set the option and the sender/moderator/both will be notified whenever a message is rejected as spam.

It may be that I'll find myself inundated with such notifications and will then change my mind, but at the moment I'm willing to risk it. On the platform that handled our group previously, I think we got about four spam messages over 17 years.

I understand there are many delicate balancing acts involved in running a system like this. Thanks to everyone for their input.

<-----2021-7-8-----MSG----->


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Duane
 

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 02:58 PM, KWKloeber wrote:
Perhaps allow any/all non-member emails, w/ no spam trapping and all of which MUST be moderated.
This is the way it was before the spam filtering was added (and still is for those that aren't considered spam) - all nonmember emails go to the moderation queue.  Those that aren't considered spam still do.

Duane


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Shal
Although it's best to ignore emailed (and phone) spam wouldn't a spam-puter get back an >undeliverable< message if the email WAS NOT received and trapped (i.e., it was sent to an invalid e-dress)?   So even if ignored (gio doesn't send back any notification) the spam-puter would have some level of certainty that its >spam-mail< went to a valid address due to no >undeliverable< message.  And if ignored and sent to a spam box (and was subsequently deleted) wouldn't the spam-puter receive a spam notice (like gio does which would then confirm it was a valid e-dress)?      
****

****
Looking at this >dilemma< logically, if a mod allows non-member messages (why do this instead of simply asking folks to join up?) then of course "someone" should receive a notice if the group receives a non-member email that goes astray (trapped as spam.)  If one wants to go that route then accept that you might get 10 notices/day and 9 are re: junk mail -- the alternate is if you don't want >non-member-spam-received< notices, then simply don't allow non-member emails.  Seems like a reasonable trade-off.  
Otherwise, one could simply allow non-member messages and either
    - let non-members fend for themselves and notify the owner that their emails are not being posted, or
    - receive a notice of trapped non-member emails at some interval to scan thru (weekly?)

Perhaps allow non-members to post ONLY thru the web interface? (that's nearly as dangerous as allowing non-members to post via email w/o spam trapping.)
Perhaps allow any/all non-member emails, w/ no spam trapping and all of which MUST be moderated.
These are just thoughts -- as OPTIONS (configurable.) 

It appears as if Mark is being asked to fix a self-created problem here? Or am I misinterpreting the >dilemma<?


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

Andy,


Spammers likely don't care 'who' the person is on the other end.  If someone receives their spam, then they succeeded and they know that address works.
 
You missed my point about addressee responses and server responses.

During the transaction when the sender (legit or spammer) connects to Groups.io to deliver the message Groups.io has only two choices: accept the message or reject it. Marc's evidence is that Groups.io is accepting the spam message (there was no failure notice at the sender). Either way though, the spammer learned that Groups.io's server is functioning - which is unavoidable.

If Marc's evidence is correct then the spammer now has every reason to believe that the message was delivered to the addressee. A deferred Bounce message from Groups.io might cast doubt on that inference; but I agree with your assessment that typical bulk spam sources probably won't process such responses in any meaningful way.

Shal


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Andy
 

What I said is that no *human* (on the spammer's end) will look at your reply.  But their computer notices.

Their computer might also try to figure out if it was a human or a machine that replied to their spam.  Not that it means anything, but I've been told that spammers aren't likely to go that far; they just want addresses that work.

Andy


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 09:22 AM, Andy wrote:
Spammers likely don't care 'who' the person is on the other end.  If someone receives their spam, then they succeeded and they know that address works.  It's not likely that a human ever looks at the reply, to know who or what sent it.
Maybe I'm missing the point again, but to me that's an argument *in favor of* responding. If it's a spammer and they won't look at it anyway, then nothing is lost by responding. But if it's actually not a spammer, they will have the useful information.
 
--
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: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Andy
 

Spammers likely don't care 'who' the person is on the other end.  If someone receives their spam, then they succeeded and they know that address works.  It's not likely that a human ever looks at the reply, to know who or what sent it.

Andy


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

Andy,


A 'bounce' message to the sender is not a good idea when spam was detected.  Replying to spam confirms to the sender that you exist and maybe saw their message.

That's true of a reply by the addressee.

But I don't think it is true of either a rejection or a deferred bounce by the receiving service. Confirming that the service exists doesn't tell the spammer anything they didn't already know, by virtue of connecting to deliver the message.

Shal


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

On Thu, Jul 8, 2021 at 06:48 AM, Marc S. Glasser wrote:
the group _is_ set to do just that.
Yes, I missed that. I missed the point of your post. Sorry.
 
--
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: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Marc S. Glasser
 

"...you could set your group to moderate, instead of reject, messages from non-member posts."

To the best of my knowledge, the group _is_ set to do just that. I have "Allow Nonmembers to Post" checked, and "All messages are moderated" selected. It's been that way since I set the group up, but still I've had the problem I described. Is there another setting I need to select that I'm somehow not seeing?

<-----2021-7-8-----MSG----->


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Andy
 

Just my opinion here ---

A 'bounce' message to the sender is not a good idea when spam was detected.  Replying to spam confirms to the sender that you exist and maybe saw their message.

I think the question is whether to send an alert to the Moderators.  Apparently, Mark Fletcher thought that he didn't want to bother Moderators about either spam or non-member posts (in groups that don't allow them), and if the number of either is great, it would be a real headache for them.  One of my groups gets lots of non-member posts (not flagged as spam even though they are, by definition), and I am glad they don't land in my inbox.

I think Marc wants it to be configurable.

Andy


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Duane
 

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 10:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
If you notifications of this kind of event, you could set your group to moderate, instead of reject, messages from non-member posts.
The problem is that this spam rejection happens before it gets to the group for approval or rejection by a moderator, so no notice is sent.  Marc mentioned that he allows nonmembers to post.

Duane


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

Marc wrote:

As long as spam filters are not perfect, I think there should be a
notification sent either to the sender or to the moderator, or both,
that the message has been rejected.
Elaborating on that, in the discussion on GMF I expressed surprise that such messages weren't being rejected during the delivery transaction, as "rejected" was the word used in the Activity Log entry and the April 3rd site update (for March 30):
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/28940

If these cases are being accepted and then dropped later then I agree with Marc that the sender should receive a bounce notice to that effect. With most sending services you can authenticate the sending address to prevent backscatter, reserve the black hole for the unauthenticated cases.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/topic/83826924#38680

Shal


moderated Re: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 08:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
If you notifications
typo, should read "if you want notifications"
 
--
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: #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

 

If you notifications of this kind of event, you could set your group to moderate, instead of reject, messages from non-member posts. Then you'd get a notificaiton that a message approval was needed.
--
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 #suggestion Let sender or moderator know that a message has been flagged as spam #suggestion

Marc S. Glasser
 

I'm new here, so please correct me if I've handled this wrong. I raised this issue in GMF but didn't get a satisfying answer other than "Post it to beta." Please pardon my verbosity, too.

I sent my new group a post from an e-address _other_ than the one I'm registered under. It got flagged as spam.
An identical message sent from the e-address that Groups.io knows for me was held for moderation, as it should be (I have "All messages are moderated" set).

OK, I understand that nonmembers' posts are subject to a higher bar to be accepted as genuine than members' posts. That's fair.

My problem is that when the first message was rejected, there was _nothing_ sent _either_ to the sending e-address _or_ to me as moderator, to inform the sender or the moderator that the post had been flagged as spam. (Yes, I checked my own spam filters, and I repeated the post to double-check that nothing was ever returned.) I would never have known that the post hadn't accidentally gotten re-routed to a small planet not far from Betelgeuse, except that someone suggested I look in the Activity page. There I found:

Non-member <e-address> attempted to send message "<subject>" and the message was rejected because it was determined to be spam, via email

As long as spam filters are not perfect, I think there should be a notification sent either to the sender or to the moderator, or both, that the message has been rejected.

You don't have to give away any state secrets about what exactly triggered the algorithm to reject the post; just do someone the courtesy of letting them know that it's happened. Otherwise, since I have no objection to nonmembers posting to the list, I need to monitor the Activity page every day to make sure a post has not been made to vanish mysteriously.

Thanks for hearing me out.
<-----2021-7-7-----MSG----->


moderated Re: Email Delivery - Weekly or monthly options (Daily currently) #suggestion

Duane
 

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 05:55 PM, Not Available wrote:
daily digest of up to 12 messages (so if there are 30 messages on a busy day, I get 3 emails when I want ONE email with all 30 messages
I don't believe that can be done.  At one time the digest was 25 messages, but caused problems, so it was reduced to 12.  This was announced here on the beta group, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/12765

Duane

861 - 880 of 30395