Date   

locked mail issues with groups.io

jamie <jaimemcgill27@...>
 

hi all
i am having mail issues with a group called blind tech i am not getting any mail from this group even alow i am a member and when i be came a member of this group it sent me a blank welcome message i would be grate full if you can look in to this issue and you can not seem to unbounce your address your self is there any way that a person could do this
jamie

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: 24 September 2015 18:08
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Subdomain proposal

Hi All,

I want to allow people to create their own subdomains if they wish. Here's a proposal for how it might work:

- You already have a group, named Fred, with subgroups Fred+Bob and Fred+Jill.
- You say you want to use a subdomain. That will be Fred, the name of your parent group.
- The subdomain 'takes the place' of Fred as your group. So, instead of sending an email to Fred+Bob@groups.io <mailto:Fred%2BBob@groups.io> , you now send an email to Bob@Fred.groups.io. Same for Jill.
- The original email addresses will still always work (Fred@groups.io, Fred+Bob@groups.io <mailto:Fred%2BBob@groups.io> , etc).
- But you need to be able to send email to your parent group Fred. So, I propose as part of the process of creating the subdomain, you specify a new alias for your main group (Fred in this example). Let's say we decide on 'Main'. So, you can send email to main@Fred.groups.io or to Fred@groups.io and the message will go to the same group.
- You can go to https://Fred.groups.io <https://Fred..groups.io> which will be a home page for your subdomain (similar or the same as) your current Fred home page.
- The ability to specify using a domain will be integrated into the initial group creation page, so people can immediately start with a subdomain, if they wish.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Proposed sub group changes

 

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:58 PM, JohnF via Groups.io <johnf1686@...> wrote:
So if a subscriber makes a sub group, does that subscriber become an owner of the sub group, or still just a subscriber?

Yes, they become an owner, just like when creating a 'normal' group.

 
I was thinking of a situation where the regular group owner might want a subscriber to become an owner of a sub group but still remain a subscriber in the main group, but not allow subscribers to create sub groups.  However, that situation could be resolved by having the owner create the sub group, the subscriber subscribing, and the owner promoting the subscriber to an owner in the sub group only.

Yes, that's exactly correct.


Mark 


locked Subdomain proposal

 

Hi All,

I want to allow people to create their own subdomains if they wish. Here's a proposal for how it might work:

- You already have a group, named Fred, with subgroups Fred+Bob and Fred+Jill.
- You say you want to use a subdomain. That will be Fred, the name of your parent group.
- The subdomain 'takes the place' of Fred as your group. So, instead of sending an email to Fred+Bob@groups.io, you now send an email to Bob@Fred.groups.io. Same for Jill.
- The original email addresses will still always work (Fred@groups.io, Fred+Bob@groups.io, etc).
- But you need to be able to send email to your parent group Fred. So, I propose as part of the process of creating the subdomain, you specify a new alias for your main group (Fred in this example). Let's say we decide on 'Main'. So, you can send email to main@Fred.groups.io or to Fred@groups.io and the message will go to the same group.
- You can go to https://Fred.groups.io which will be a home page for your subdomain (similar or the same as) your current Fred home page.
- The ability to specify using a domain will be integrated into the initial group creation page, so people can immediately start with a subdomain, if they wish.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Allowing non-subscribers to post

Shal Farley
 

Ronaldo,

In my view, a non-subscriber who just wants some advice on one
particular topic, or just wants to make one announcement to the group,
is NOT a "member" or "subscriber". (s)he is a GUEST. People who are
interested in joining several of a group's discussions would subscribe
the normal way.
That's only one of the possible uses for adding subscribe buttons to a pending non-member posting. In my view there is little or no distinction between this way and the "normal" way. Adding these buttons simply adds the +subscribe functionality to the non-member posting.

As far as I'm concerned (at least for now), guests should not even be
listed in the member-list.
Anyone subscribed to group messages ought to be listed _somewhere_. Moderators need to be able to keep track of who's receiving group messages, check their bouncing status, and assist them with their subscription options.

What is important is that they receive all messages belonging to the
thread that their post starts, and that regular members know they are
replying to a non-member's post {so we don't get unjustified reproaches
like "we've been discussing that all week last month, you
[expletive]").
Is that how your group members would treat a new member that joined the "normal" way? Why assume such behavior towards a new member that joined this way?

One little problem that could arise: What if someone sends a message
from a spoofed email-address?
That's more of a problem for groups that do _not_ allow non-member posting (the possibility of a stranger pretending to be a member and thereby being allowed to post). That used to be possible (easy in fact) in Yahoo Groups, but then Yahoo implemented some checking for the authenticity of the submitted messages and I've not seen this kind of problem for several years*. But I can't answer as to Groups.io's defenses against spoofed messages.

Is there an emergency-button to forcibly end a thread?
Yes. You (a moderator) can edit a thread and close it.

-- Shal
*I think, but I have only spot-checked a few instances, that the cases of exploit spam (containing little more than a link) I've seen in my Pending queues in the last few months generally resolve to compromised email accounts, not spoofed addresses.


locked Re: Allowing non-subscribers to post

ro-esp
 

I have to say you confused me big time. In my view, a non-subscriber who just wants some advice on one particular topic, or just wants to make one announcement to the group, is NOT a "member" or "subscriber". (s)he is a GUEST. People who are interested in joining several of a group's discussions would subscribe the normal way.

As far as I'm concerned (at least for now), guests should not even be listed in the member-list. What is important is that they receive all messages belonging to the thread that their post starts, and that regular members know they are replying to a non-member's post {so we don't get unjustified reproaches like "we've been discussing that all week last month, you [expletive]").

One little problem that could arise:What if someone sends a message from a spoofed email-address? Is there an emergency-button to forcibly end a thread?
groetjes, Ronaldo


locked Re: Proposed sub group changes

 

So if a subscriber makes a sub group, does that subscriber become an owner of the sub group, or still just a subscriber?

I was thinking of a situation where the regular group owner might want a subscriber to become an owner of a sub group but still remain a subscriber in the main group, but not allow subscribers to create sub groups. However, that situation could be resolved by having the owner create the sub group, the subscriber subscribing, and the owner promoting the subscriber to an owner in the sub group only.

JohnF


locked Re: Proposed sub group changes

 

Duane,

I had no trouble editing my post in another thread online. For small
corrections like you made, I'd really like to see an option to NOT send
the message again.
Moderators have that option, but I'd really rather not put it in the hands of members. Changing one word might be a simple correction, or a mischievous reversal of meaning.

Took me almost 10 minutes to figure out which word you removed! ;>)
That's because Linda re-submitted the message with a change, rather than actually editing the message. But she's got that figured out now.

Otherwise the easy thing to do would be to click through the View This Message link in the edited message footer. Then you'll see an Edited button in the upper right. Click it and you get a tool to compare revisions of the message - wiki-style.

That's assuming you have access to the group's web pages when and where you are (which may not always be true).

-- Shal


locked Re: Proposed sub group changes

Duane
 

I had no trouble editing my post in another thread online. For small corrections like you made, I'd really like to see an option to NOT send the message again. That could cause problems with those that only read posts via email though, especially if it were something more critical. I just hate wasting the bandwidth for something that small. Took me almost 10 minutes to figure out which word you removed! ;>)

Duane


locked HashTag duration glitch

Duane
 
Edited

I created a hashtag this morning to check how the Thread Duration works. I set it to expire after one hour, but the thread is still there. I thought maybe it would expire after the last reply was an hour old, but that didn't happen either. It's now at 1:10 and still isn't gone.

Update: The thread got deleted after about 2 hours, but I wasn't watching closely. Close enough for my purposes.

Thanks,
Duane


locked Re: Proposed sub group changes

Linda
 

Hi Mark,
I’ve interspersed (***) my comments.
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:32 AM
Subject: [beta] Proposed sub group changes
 
Hi All,
 
Right now, there's a permission on moderator subscriptions for creating sub groups. Only group owners and moderators with that permission can create sub groups. I propose the following changes:
 
- A group setting for who can create sub groups: subscribers, mods and owners, owners only, defaulting to mods and owners on existing groups.
 
***I question your selection of default.  IMO, the default should be always be group owners.
 
- The permission on moderator subscriptions is changed so that it is now a permission to act as an owner in any sub group.
 
***Acting as an owner implies the ability to remove members, including other owners, or will you ensure that an acting owner will not have the ability to remove actual owners (or does the next item cover that)?
 
- Group owners automatically also act as owners in all sub groups, regardless of whether they are subscribed to the sub group or not.
 
***Should read that group owners are automatically actual owners of all sub groups, regardless of whether they are subscribed to the sub group or not.
 
These changes allow more flexibility/possibilities with sub groups. You would now be able to let your subscribers create sub groups of their own, if they want/need to. But you still have full control over them.
 
***I think it’s a great idea.  Simplicity with flexibility in the design is a worthy goal. (Comment pertains also to your addendum.)
 
Thoughts?
 
Thanks,
Mark
 
(Over the summer I've been working on the enterprise version of Groups.io, which would basically be like a 'private' version of Groups.io. The way that would work is that people would become members of your Groups.io org (a new thing in the enterprise version), and within that org are groups. I've come to the conclusion that instead of doing that, it makes more sense to make a few changes to existing features, like the sub group changes I've outlined above.)
 


locked Proposed sub group changes

 

Hi All,

Right now, there's a permission on moderator subscriptions for creating sub groups. Only group owners and moderators with that permission can create sub groups. I propose the following changes:

- A group setting for who can create sub groups: subscribers, mods and owners, owners only, defaulting to mods and owners on existing groups.
- The permission on moderator subscriptions is changed so that it is now a permission to act as an owner in any sub group.
- Group owners automatically also act as owners in all sub groups, regardless of whether they are subscribed to the sub group or not.

These changes allow more flexibility/possibilities with sub groups. You would now be able to let your subscribers create sub groups of their own, if they want/need to. But you still have full control over them.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark

(Over the summer I've been working on the enterprise version of Groups.io, which would basically be like a 'private' version of Groups.io. The way that would work is that people would become members of your Groups.io org (a new thing in the enterprise version), and within that org are groups. I've come to the conclusion that instead of doing that, it makes more sense to make a few changes to existing features, like the sub group changes I've outlined above.)


locked Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site over the past week:

  • NEW: Sub groups can now have public archives.
  • NEW: Group setting to allow non subscribers to post (the posts are moderated).
  • NEW: Send a resubscribed notification to moderators if a subscriber 'resubscribes' within the 3 day period after using the 'leave' email link.
  • CHANGE: Added linefeeds to the download member list page and removed unnecessary quotes.
  • BUGFIX: Properly parsing/sanitizing messages with mismatched font tags.
  • INTERNAL: Several changes to make the code more efficient and use less memory.
  • TESTING: Changes to the HTML posting widget to make the formatting buttons readable by screen readers.

Cheers, Mark


locked Re: Need publicly viewable archive option in subgroup #suggestion

 

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:

That said, I'm bumping into one seemingly needless restriction that is blocking one use I have in mind. The main PTA group has publicly viewable archives, and one of my subgroup use cases also needs publicly viewable archives, but that's not an option. I'd want this in addition to the existing choices (viewable by parent group members & viewable by subgroup members). Listed in parent group.

In fact, I could see a use case for publicly viewable archives in a subgroup of a parent group whose archives are members-only.

I just pushed the changes so that this is now possible. Sub groups can now have public archives. The permissions system currently works the same as it did before, however, so that you can't make a sub group's archives 'less' private than they currently are. So, if you have an existing sub group and would like for the archives to be public, let me know off-list the names of the subgroups and I'll manually set the archives to public.

Cheers,
Mark


locked Re: yahoogroup message archive transfer?

 

Hi Green,

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Green Fizzpops <greenfizzpops@...> wrote:

My question is : is it possible to transfer the message archive? It is pretty valuable to us. I'd be happy with just copying over all the first posts (not replies) of the 10 moderators and the owner address as a bare minimum.

I would be happy to work with you to import your archives. As Shal mentioned, the Yahoo ToS means that we can only import the messages from the posters who have given permission. The archives should be in mbox format if possible. Send me an email off-list and we'll get started.

Cheers,
Mark


locked Re: Allowing non-subscribers to post

 

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:

It could also help make the import of message content (from an archive or a
live group elsewhere) a possibility; since that is another case which would
likely have broken the "must be a member" assumption.

Agreed. It makes all that much easier now.

Mark 


locked Re: Allowing non-subscribers to post

 

Mark,

It took a bunch of work, because the code was originally written assuming
that each message belonged to a subscriber. But it's worth it; I think this
will be a good feature for some groups.

A long time ago we talked about 'guest subscriptions' ..., and this change will
help make that a possibility.
It could also help make the import of message content (from an archive or a
live group elsewhere) a possibility; since that is another case which would
likely have broken the "must be a member" assumption.

-- Shal


locked Re: yahoogroup message archive transfer?

 

Green,

My question is : is it possible to transfer the message archive?
No (not yet?).

There is a tool to download a copy of your Yahoo Group's messages, but there's no tool for uploading it somewhere else.
http://yahoogroupedia.pbworks.com/Chrome+Application+To+Download+Messages

And, there is a permission issue with doing that: Yahoo makes it pretty clear that you need your contributing members' permission:
http://info.yahoo.com/guidelines/us/yahoo/groups/
(item 5)

It is pretty valuable to us. I'd be happy with just copying over all the
first posts (not replies) of the 10 moderators and the owner address as
a bare minimum.
That would cover the permission issue then.

I saw tantalising mention of using hashtags to silently "load" messages
into a group, but could not find further details?
That mechanism has at least two defects for this purpose. First is that the messages "loaded" this way would be attributed to ("From") the person doing the loading, not the original poster. Second, they would be dated as of the date loaded and appear in that order in the message lists. The first may not be a problem for your limited case, the second is harder to guess.

To do it, you create a hashtag and give it the NoEmail property. Then you send (via email) or post (via web) those messages with that hashtag in the subject line. For your purpose you might name the hashtag "history" or "archive" or something like that indicating that these are messages copied from the old group.

....

An altogether different approach is to leave the old groups' content in place at the Yahoo Group as the archive of its content. For more detail see:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/GroupManagersForum/conversations/messages/57581

-- Shal


locked Re: Allowing non-subscribers to post

 

Mark,

If we go with the current guest subscription proposal, in addition to
the normal 'Approve' button when viewing a pending message, there'd be a
'Approve & Subscribe' button, which would create a subscription for the
person and set that subscription to only receive replies to their
message. Should there also be an option to create a full/normal
subscription?
Yes. For my primary use cases I'd more likely create a normal subscription (but I do see where following only their own thread would be a useful choice in some cases).

As part of this, anyone who is subscribed this way will have to reply to
a confirmation email to verify that they want the subscription. I could,
through that, allow them to decide whether to only receive replies to
their email or to have a full subscription. That would obviate the need
for another Approve & Subscribe button.
Hmm, no.

In my use case I would want their default (say they just reply to the confirmation email) to be the option I chose. So I think both buttons would still be needed.

Providing the option in the confirmation email is probably a good feature anyway, for those new members observant enough to use it. I'm not sure what form the choice would take in the email, but if it is a control that has a default then its default should match the button I chose.

Also, is it important to have these subscriptions marked as special in
the member lists, like the proposal states?
Not for me, I think. I can sort the Members list by Joined date to readily find any new ones, and if I'm concerned with an old one I probably know the email address or something I can search for.

But if it is in the Members list I'd want it to be searchable and sortable. That is, I can imagine use cases where it would be handy to bring up a list of just such members, or bring them to the top of the list. And of course be in export as well.


locked Re: Download member list question with Windows

 

Mark,

I just pushed a change to the site so that downloading the member list
should now have proper linefeeds on Windows machines (ie. all the lines
won't run together). I also removed a bunch of unnecessary quotes around
the numeric fields. Please let me know what you think.
Much cleaner look, I like it (even though I immediately paste the list into Excel and the look doesn't really affect me).

-- Shal


locked Re: non-members posting how?

Duane