Date   

locked Re: Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Maria,

             Most of this functionality, though not all, is supported by the Bookmarks/Favorites/Reading List or whatever the web browser you're using calls it.  I use bookmarks and create folders for them to separate them out, do these sorts of sorts, etc., in both Firefox and Chrome.

             This is another of those situations where I personally feel that adding functionality that actually exists as a native feature of virtually every web browser to the actual site interface is "reinventing the wheel."
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Maria
 

I'd love the option to be able to bookmark a post within the groups.io interface.

I would imagine the "bookmark" to be in the "more" menu of the reply bar.

I would imagine a "Bookmarks" page in the user menu.

I'd love the ability to sort the bookmarks by author, date, or hashtag or even to be able to categorize these posts in a way that feels useful to me.

Also to be able to search from within the bookmarks for specific terms.

Maria


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I appreciate the explanation, as it tells me a lot.

I use Gmail, but I get precisely the same thing in my inbox whether or not "always want" is checked or not.  Why is that? [Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't figure that bit out from the detailed explanation you gave, Shal.]
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:49 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
Gmail, and certain other email services, use the Message-ID field in a message to detect when a received message is one you've sent; and then it hides the received message from you. I think that those messages may be findable in the "All Mail" folder in Gmail, but I'm not certain of that.

Thanks Shal! That's been driving me crazy - I've had members enquire why they don't get copies of their own posts in gmail from Y! and now I know why and what to tell them. How great groups.io has a solution for this. 

Maria


locked Re: Difference between Display Name and User Name ?

Maria
 

I'd also suggest revisiting the description for the Display name:

Right now it says: "The long version of your name."

Is that really what it is? Maybe it should say that this is the name that will be listed in posts next to your profile picture, or the name in the "From" field on the digest?Or other?

I just had a test member think that display name would be at the bottom of her posts and user name was her profile name that would be shown in posts.

Maria


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:50 pm, J_catlady wrote:
That was what I'd predicted. Groups concerned about the fig leaf would want to bypass this. 

That would not be the only or primary concern for our group when it comes to this feature request (I imagine limits would be placed to ensure you can't really harvest emails).

There are other potentially more serious reasons why this simply wouldn't work for our group. Without getting in to specifics they have to do with ownership and usage, as well as participation term, changing these terms retroactively (without the consent of a large number of authors), and being forced to set new terms that we don't even agree with. Similar to the "forwarding" issue, doesn't work for us.

Again, this feature might be great for other groups. Just not for us.

In our group, if one want's to "save" a past post in order to refer to it one can bookmark it in one's browser.  If you want to reply to it, the web interface facilitates that and lets the person receiving your reply know that you "come from" groups.io. In Y! if the member is no longer in the group, the reply gets circled back to the mods.

Separately, I think I suggested bookmarking within the site in another thread (not following) actually bookmarking so that each member can have a page for his/her bookmarks from the archive and ideally could even organize these in a manner they find useful.

Maria



locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

 

Shal,

A two-fer! Illustrates (1) importance of 'reason for edit' box and (2) inconvenience of fig leaf. :-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 10, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: Undo "fig-leafing". Inserted spaces to escape it.]

Brian,

There has been a recent post from an e-mail participant on one of the
groups I frequent that his own e-mail address is not showing up on the
messages he receives that he originated in various threads.
Probably DMARC. If the person uses Yahoo Mail, or certain other email services, Groups.io will modify the From address of their message to be from the groups.io domain, and their email address encoded in the user name part of the address. That is, their From will look like:

From: Display Name < user = example.com @ groups.io >

This is a work-around to the DMARC problem. It's a long story, but the short of it is that DMARC is an anti-spoofing technology that causes their customer's messages, if passed through an email list, to be dropped or quarantined on receipt.

Groups.io detects when the sender's email service is using that technology, and modifies the From field so that the message is no longer a "spoof", and this makes the message much more likely to be delivered to users of email services that detect DMARC usage on the receiving side.

I, and most others, seem to get something that notes that our own
messages are from ourselves "via groups.io".
That's a way that some email services let you know that the message came via a list, rather than directly from the sender.

I changed my subscription to "All Messages" and turned the "always want"
setting on, and I get an e-mail message with what I post here via the
web interface. However, if I turn the "always want" feature off, but
with "All Messages" on, I see absolutely no change in what comes to my
inbox at all.
The "always want" feature is a work-around for Gmail's default behavior with list messages.

Gmail, and certain other email services, use the Message-ID field in a message to detect when a received message is one you've sent; and then it hides the received message from you. I think that those messages may be findable in the "All Mail" folder in Gmail, but I'm not certain of that.

The "always want" feature causes Groups.io to replace the message's Message-ID field with one generated by groups.io. When that is done Gmail no longer recognizes the message as being something you already have, and so it lands in your Inbox.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

 
Edited

Brian,

There has been a recent post from an e-mail participant on one of the
groups I frequent that his own e-mail address is not showing up on the
messages he receives that he originated in various threads.
Probably DMARC. If the person uses Yahoo Mail, or certain other email services, Groups.io will modify the From address of their message to be from the groups.io domain, and their email address encoded in the user name part of the address. That is, their From will look like:

From: Display Name < user = example.com @ groups.io >

This is a work-around to the DMARC problem. It's a long story, but the short of it is that DMARC is an anti-spoofing technology that causes their customer's messages, if passed through an email list, to be dropped or quarantined on receipt.

Groups.io detects when the sender's email service is using that technology, and modifies the From field so that the message is no longer a "spoof", and this makes the message much more likely to be delivered to users of email services that detect DMARC usage on the receiving side.

I, and most others, seem to get something that notes that our own
messages are from ourselves "via groups.io".
That's a way that some email services let you know that the message came via a list, rather than directly from the sender.

I changed my subscription to "All Messages" and turned the "always want"
setting on, and I get an e-mail message with what I post here via the
web interface. However, if I turn the "always want" feature off, but
with "All Messages" on, I see absolutely no change in what comes to my
inbox at all.
The "always want" feature is a work-around for Gmail's default behavior with list messages.

Gmail, and certain other email services, use the Message-ID field in a message to detect when a received message is one you've sent; and then it hides the received message from you. I think that those messages may be findable in the "All Mail" folder in Gmail, but I'm not certain of that.

The "always want" feature causes Groups.io to replace the message's Message-ID field with one generated by groups.io. When that is done Gmail no longer recognizes the message as being something you already have, and so it lands in your Inbox.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Why can't we forward messages?

 

Jennifer,

I remember that Yahoo used to let members forward messages to someone
outside a group -- and then that option disappeared. Is there some
kind of convention against forwarding on list-servs?
That option disappeared when Yahoo found that spammers were abusing it. They could post a spam message in their own group - or any loosely moderated group - and then use a program to feed their entire mailing list through the Forward feature, one addressee at a time.
(As told by Gordon Strause, then Y!Groups Product Manager. Yahoo Groups was at that time facing a lot of issues due to programs written to exploit its features. A lot of features disappeared or became severely restricted because of that.)

So forwarding is actually fine in some of my groups. It inconveniences
us that Groups.io has no forwarding option -- since we often want to do
so.
In groups with public archives that is often the attitude, though it would probably be advisable to make sure that all of the members understand the policy.

Back at the time the Forwarding feature was removed from Y!Groups I suggested the "Send To Me" feature as a suitable replacement (because it would be useless for sending spam to other people's address). But that was never implemented.

At a minimum, allowing moderators to forward would be particularly
useful, particularly those of us who are control freaks and moderate
everything. Tonight I intercepted a personal email that had by mistake
been sent to one of my groups. When that happens, I send it along to
the intended recipient with a cc to the sender -- and the subject line
"Intercepted personal message". [This is part of my Humiliation
Prevention Service.]
It is probably best to simply reject the message back to the sender with an explanation. I would feel uncomfortable revealing to the intended recipient that a third party (me) had seen the information. Unless I knew the parties relatively well.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

Shal,

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:07 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

the key was that emails sent in the past aren't available to a potentially malicious member who joins now

and that was exactly what I was trying to point out. We are on the same page. I still think (as I thought at the time of the "great debate") that the threat is low. But if people are going to make that argument at all, then adding "send to me" *really* negates it. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:07 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
"Fleeting" isn't the word,

Semantics. It was something synonymous. Or nearly synonymous. Ok, I found it: "disposable and temporary." Maria wrote:

"Our members have one comfort level with emails and another with the web archive.They feel these as 2 different experiences. One disposable and temporary and the other permanent like a digital tattoo."
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

J,

Yes, and even if it's not automated. The argument for the fig leaf was
always, "The email is fleeting, but the archive stays there."
"Fleeting" isn't the word, the key was that emails sent in the past aren't available to a potentially malicious member who joins now. Hence my suggested restriction of "Since I joined".

If the archive suddenly becomes sendable, that argument no longer holds.
Making the entire archive available to "Send To Me" would have that risk. It would need limits; which is something I hadn't considered when I initiated this thread.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Hello All,

           As is well-known in these parts, I don't generally interact with Groups.io via e-mail, but I have on occasion turned on the various subscription options trying to test things out for myself or someone else.  There has been a recent post from an e-mail participant on one of the groups I frequent that his own e-mail address is not showing up on the messages he receives that he originated in various threads.  I, and most others, seem to get something that notes that our own messages are from ourselves "via groups.io".

           I thought this might be somehow related to the feature mentioned in the subject of this message that can be found on any member's profile at this page:  https://groups.io/editprofile?page=profile.  I changed my subscription to "All Messages" and turned the "always want" setting on, and I get an e-mail message with what I post here via the web interface.  However, if I turn the "always want" feature off, but with "All Messages" on, I see absolutely no change in what comes to my inbox at all.

           Is the "always want" feature somehow linked to digests, but has no effect on individual messages coming via e-mail?  I had suspected, prior to this undertaking, that I might get nothing in my inbox for my own posts when "always want" and "All Messages" was set on, but I do.

           I'm now at a bit of a loss as to what the "always want" feature is all about.  It seems to have no effect at all, but that could be because it only means anything when your subscription is not "All Messages".  What's up here?
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:49 pm, HR Tech wrote:
'm pretty sure if given the option, I'd switch it off if it were optional.

That was what I'd predicted. Groups concerned about the fig leaf would want to bypass this. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Possible bug - Words in brackets at start of subject line

 

Jennifer,

Go into your settings and change the "subject tag." I don't use subgroups, but I would assume this works the same way for them.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 05:37 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm not sure what form those limits might take; one possibility is to allow it only for messages posted since I joined the group (messages I in principle could have had by email).

Because I'm not so thrilled about the way you get a flood of emails in your inbox when you start following an existing thread, I'd probably not be too interested in this feature either. Mainly, I don't think it's something my group would need or benefit from - in fact I think it might even feel uncomfortable to us. I'm pretty sure if given the option, I'd switch it off if it were optional. I'm not saying it wouldn't be helpful for other groups - just that it wouldn't be a right fit for ours.

That said, If implemented, I definitely agree that it ought to have parameters to prevent abuse and also take in to consideration authors who may no longer be a member of the group, and who therefore may not want their emails to become "new" again in someone's inbox.

Maria



locked Re: Why can't we forward messages?

Maria
 

In our groups we would want the option to disable "forwarding" (from the web interface) as it's against our group guidelines.

Seeing "forward" in the "more" menu would have a chilling effect on group activity.

So, if this is considered and implemented, we would absolutely need the option to disable it.

Separately, Jennifer, if you moderate all messages ( but don't receive them in your inbox after they post) you can get moderation notifications in your inbox and in each one is a copy of the message which in turn you can forward or reply to. Not sure if in the interim maybe that's helpful info.

Maria


locked Why can't we forward messages?

Jennifer Christian
 

I remember that Yahoo used to let members forward messages to someone outside a group --  and then that option disappeared.   Is there some kind of convention against forwarding on list-servs?

I realize that some groups want to keep all conversation inside.  But two of my professional groups are filled with people I'm hoping will serve as propagators of ideas to others.  Some members tell me they routinely share important  (educational, newsworthy) messages with their co-workers and colleagues.  So forwarding is actually fine in some of my groups. It inconveniences us that Groups.io  has no forwarding option -- since we often want to do so. 

At a minimum, allowing moderators to forward would be particularly useful, particularly those of us who are control freaks and moderate everything.  Tonight I intercepted a personal email that had by mistake been sent to one of my groups.   When that happens, I send it along to the intended recipient with a cc to the sender -- and the subject line "Intercepted personal message".  [This is part of my Humiliation Prevention Service.]   Because forwarding is not possible,  I had to swoop, copy and paste it into a new email and in so doing the formatting got all screwed up.


Jennifer


locked Possible bug - Words in brackets at start of subject line

Jennifer Christian
 

Maybe I found a bug while fiddling with the settings for one of my groups.   

The MAIN group is called Praxis.  I had set up a sub-group called "Members Only".   When emails arrived, the subject line began [MembersOnly] which was too generic.   It wasn't clear the messages were coming from a Praxis-related group.

So I changed the name of the sub-group to "Praxis Members Only" and revised the email address to which messages are sent so it begins with PraxisMembersOnly@......com .  That has worked fine.  I thought that would also change the words in brackets at the start of the subject line.     However, it STILL begins with [MembersOnly] -- no Praxis.  Is this a bug?


Jennifer


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

Shal,

Exactly the same as it would have had I received the message by email when it was first sent. No difference.

It's not the same. Here you go on to state the difference:

Mark may need to put some limits on Send To Me to prevent automated harvesting of the group's message archive

Yes, and even if it's not automated. The argument for the fig leaf was always, "The email is fleeting, but the archive stays there." If the archive suddenly becomes sendable, that argument no longer holds. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.