Date   

moderated Re: Spurious Activity Log entry about Moderator's permissions #bug

 

I haven't seen the GMF thread but I mentioned something along these lines recently here:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/29650

--
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 Spurious Activity Log entry about Moderator's permissions #bug

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

as discussed on GMF, we are seeing spurious Activity Log entries about Moderator permissions being changed when nothing of the sort has happened.

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: sluggish groups.io processes, especially editing pending message #misc

 

If you can try the computer version of Firefox, hit F12 to bring up the developer tools (there are other ways to do it if F12 is a problem), click on Network, and then perform the Groups.io action where the network lag starts. Firefox is good at showing all the network connections that happen after that, and how long each one takes. If one seems like it's taking much longer than the others, that could be the culprit.

JohnF


moderated Re: Calendar not sending Special Notices #bug

Jim F.
 

Thank you, Mark!  

Best regards. 

-Jim 

On Jul 12, 2021, at 4:16 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:07 AM Jim F. via groups.io <JimF56s=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Our group has meetings twice a month (2nd & 4th Saturdays).  The Calendar is set to send out Special Notice reminders 5 days and 5 hours ahead of each meeting.  But it has started sending the reminders as regular notices that go only to those who are subscribed to get all email posts, not to all members who are subscribed to get Special Notices.  The 'Send as a Special Notice' box is checked for both Calendar reminders.  I tried deleting the Calendar events and setting up new ones, but it didn't help: today's notice went out as a regular notice, so I had to resend it manually as a Special Notice (which worked).  The last Calendar-generated Special Notice was sent 5/22, and the first Calendar-generated regular post was sent 6/07.  Was there an update in that period, or is there something I can do to get the automatic Special Notices working again?  Thanks and best regards.  -Jim F. 
_
This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: sluggish groups.io processes, especially editing pending message #misc

 

Mark,

I’m now seeing it on a constant basis and will send you details the next time. I’ve even started to swear at it! :-(

Maybe it’s not groups.io if I’m the only one, but even in that case I could use some smart help on what else it might be.

Thanks!

J


On Jul 12, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:


On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:08 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I've noticed recently that some groups.io processes are sluggish. It's not my computer (new computer is lightening fast) or my connection (all other sites load without delay). Things seem slightly sluggish here in general lately, but one process that stands out in particular, and is fairly (or completely) consistent, is editing a pending message. I'm often sitting there drumming on the table while the little wheel spins and spins until the edit screen finally comes up. I think this has been happening for about the past month. Other processes sometimes seem delayed as well, but I can't point to a pattern except for that one.

This is strange. I monitor how long it takes to generate web pages, and I'm not seeing any issues with the pending message edit screen. Please let me know off-list the next time  you see this and I'll pull up the exact log files and see if I can see anything.

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: sluggish groups.io processes, especially editing pending message #misc

 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 9:08 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
I've noticed recently that some groups.io processes are sluggish. It's not my computer (new computer is lightening fast) or my connection (all other sites load without delay). Things seem slightly sluggish here in general lately, but one process that stands out in particular, and is fairly (or completely) consistent, is editing a pending message. I'm often sitting there drumming on the table while the little wheel spins and spins until the edit screen finally comes up. I think this has been happening for about the past month. Other processes sometimes seem delayed as well, but I can't point to a pattern except for that one.

This is strange. I monitor how long it takes to generate web pages, and I'm not seeing any issues with the pending message edit screen. Please let me know off-list the next time  you see this and I'll pull up the exact log files and see if I can see anything.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Calendar not sending Special Notices #bug

 

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 11:07 AM Jim F. via groups.io <JimF56s=icloud.com@groups.io> wrote:
Our group has meetings twice a month (2nd & 4th Saturdays).  The Calendar is set to send out Special Notice reminders 5 days and 5 hours ahead of each meeting.  But it has started sending the reminders as regular notices that go only to those who are subscribed to get all email posts, not to all members who are subscribed to get Special Notices.  The 'Send as a Special Notice' box is checked for both Calendar reminders.  I tried deleting the Calendar events and setting up new ones, but it didn't help: today's notice went out as a regular notice, so I had to resend it manually as a Special Notice (which worked).  The last Calendar-generated Special Notice was sent 5/22, and the first Calendar-generated regular post was sent 6/07.  Was there an update in that period, or is there something I can do to get the automatic Special Notices working again?  Thanks and best regards.  -Jim F. 
_
This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: #bug Apostrophes in Message footers #bug

Michael Pavan
 

Thanks Mark

On Jul 12, 2021, at 3:34 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 9:09 AM Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@comcast.net> 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 Re: Email Delivery - Weekly or monthly options (Daily currently) #suggestion

 

On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 4:13 PM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
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

The reason I did that was because Gmail (and other large email services), limit the size of email messages that they will display by default. With gmail, for example, if the message is too long (for whatever their definition is of that), they will only show the first part of the email, and then make you click a link to display the full email. A pain, and I wish they wouldn't do that. 12 messages per digest seemed to be a sweet spot to avoid triggering that in most cases.

Thanks,
Mark 


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

1141 - 1160 of 30684