They wanted me to verify my account before giving me "full help" (and I've done that, so waiting again...), but their preliminary message said:

> From what I know of this you may be able to correct this if you limit the connection to tls1.1 (set tls.Config.MaxVersion to tls.VersionTLS11).

In case that's of any help. :-)

It's great seeing Mark working on Groups.io.  I ran an arts list on eGroups before it went to YahooGroups. 
 
I think I may have misinterpreted what it means to 'transfer' a group.  I had thought it meant to copy the old group's message archive to the new group.  But it's appearing that it means to copy the list of members/subscribers to the new group.  Have others misread this as well?  Wishful thinking on my part.  

Anyways, hoping Groups.io sees much success in coming years.
RichardTE 

"You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property"

 In my opinion this is fine. It reads very clearly as disallowing "descriptions of," "links to," and "methods for" the stealing of intellectual property, not as disallowing descriptions of or links to intellectual property itself. (As you say, those are not forbidden under copyright law.) 

The rest of your points I find very compelling, especially the part about implementation, so to speak. Even if one agrees in principle with these rules, you might run into problems a la Facebook(*), where some random person could report you and make your life miserable.

J

(*) referring to FB's ill-conceived "real name" policy

As a postscript, if you implemented the discourse.org code of conduct as a mandated Groups.io code of conduct and I posted a link to a Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicting Allah in any Groups.io group it would be a DOUBLE CODE OF CONDUCT VIOLATION as it arguably violates BOTH of the following code of condut rules

--  You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property

and 

--  Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit

depending upon the viewpoint, reading, and interpretation of the individuals registering a code of conduct complaint and the individual administering a response to such a code of conduct complaint.

As would my signing my post, as I always do.  Now I'm hypothetically at THREE code of conduct violations!

Best,

Mark Bielecki

Hi Mark F.,

Sorry for the delay in responding;  it's been a busy weekend and new week.

I clicked your link to the discourse.org code of conduct and read it;  very well written, very innocuous sounding.  It would be a great example of a code of conduct for Groups.io groups to consider implementing or using as a basis for their own;  however it doesn't fit me or my groups!

I don't see it working for me or my groups because:

1)  It's generic;  no matter how well written there's going to be something that doesnt fit somebody's group, and if you're going to impose a code of conduct across the board on all Groups.io groups you obviously can't custom rewrite the code of condut to tailor fit every group, one-by-one.  In my case, the discourse.org code of conduct states

• Don’t sign your posts — every post has your profile information attached to it.

In my case, I was just about to impose the requirement in my groups that EVERY post MUST be signed as a courtesy to others -- the exact opposite of what the discourse.org code of conduct mandates.

Seemingly innocuous as written by discourse.org, except that it's the exact opposite of what I want and intend to require in my groups.

2)  The discourse.org code of conduct states

You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property

That can be read as (1) you may not post descriptions of someone's intellectual property, (2) you may not post links to someone's intellectual property, and/or (3) you may not post methods for stealing someone's intellectual property.  Which unfortunately is not what US copyright law allows -- to paraphrase the law, one can post a limited excerpt from or description of or links to copyrighted work without running afoul of the law or "stealing" the copyrighted intellectual property.  Which means I have a problem with the code of conduct as written.

If an additional comma had been inserted in that sentence of the discourse.org code of conduct and it read "You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for, stealing someone's intellectual property" it would mean a completely different thing than what it currently reads or can be read as meaning;  with the comma the descriptions of, links to, or methods of, would all refer to prohibitions relating to stealing intellectual property, not prohibitions relating to describing intellectual property, to creating links to intellectual property, or posting methods of stealing intellectual property, all as it can ambiguously be read to be currently stating.  I have no way of knowing which of those two intentions was the intention of the discourse.org code of conduct;  I'd like to think it was the second one, but a comma makes all the difference int he world to what something means.  Lawyers LOVE commas.  So do trolls, troublemakers, and drama queens, none of which I have any desire to have to deal with in my groups.

3)  The discourse.org code of conduct states:

• Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit.

Going back to my previous post which you responded to, "What if a group of religious or free speech academics or even just plain old people started a group to discuss the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the underlying issues, re-posted those cartoons on their Groups.io group, and a conservative Muslim complained?"  From the perspective of the conservative Muslim the cartoons are blasphemous and could be described as being obscene -- and the US Supreme Court stated in its famous ruling (and I paraphrase) pornography/obscenity can not be defined, but one knows it when when sees it.  That being the case, the hypothetical conservative Muslim has a legitimate complaint about a code violation of the discourse.org code of conduct if somebody posts any cartoon depicting Allah.  That may be OK in some groups, but it's not OK in mine.

Referring to that same code of conduct rule ("Keep it clean, don't post anything obscene of sexually explicit"), the famous book Our Bodies, Our Selves contains photographs of women's genitals, presented for scientific/intellectual discourse and not prurient interest purposes.  If a legal excerpt from that book was described, linked to, or excerpted legally in a post to a Groups.io group it would be a code of conduct violation according to the discourse.org code of conduct.  Not OK with me or my groups.

4)  Equally, and maybe more important than, all of the above, is the concern that if a person with differing viewpoints, culture, morals, upbringing, religious beliefs, etc., or a person who is simply a troll, troublemaker, or drama queen, wishes to cause problems for my group (or any other Groups.io group), all that person ahs to do is complain to Groups.io itself and now we have an unknown censor/arbitrator.code of conduct enforcer from Groups.io looking over the shoulders of all of the Groups.io group owners/moderators with the ability to overrule the individual groups' owners/moderators decisions as to how they wish to run an moderate their own groups.  Again, not OK with my groups or with me.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I would stop investigating moving groups from Yahoo! Groups to Groups.io if Groups.io instituted a code of conduct, for all of the above reasons and probably dozens more if I wanted to take the time to iterate them.  There are other alternatives to Yahoo! Groups and Groups.io;  prior to stumbing on Groups.io I was investigating using a Wordpress site with the new Postmatic plug-in. which automates much of what Y!G and G.io does but would require more work that migrating my Y!Groups over to G.io.  But if faced with a mandated code of conduct I would take the time to go that route rather than have the potential of third party code of conduct enforcers descending upon my groups and overriding my authority and decisions as a moderator.

Mark F., I think a generic code of conduct template to offer to Groups.io group owners and moderators to use as an optional tool is a GREAT idea;  I think that Groups.io mandating a code of conduct is an AWFUL idea -- for so many, many reasons.  As I commented before, "if you are truly concerned about Groups.io getting some sort of 'bad' reputation like some other communications platforms, might I suggest that to address your concerns without embroiling yourself and your staff in code of conduct issues and problems that you simply retain the authority to require groups which leave you uncomfortable or concerned to switch over to being private groups instead of public groups?  Problem solved with public image issues for Groups.io;  anybody who joins a private group at that point has gone looking for whatever they found, especially if you allow a label such as 'restricted' or 'adult' or some other similar rating or label that notifies the potential subscriber that there may be some concerns for the faint hearted amongst us."

Best,

Mark Bielecki

Is there a way to email out a digest of the Photos section or something?

This might be a stupid question but it might be because I was never a heavy Yahoo/whatever groups user. 

We are using Groups.io almost strictly via email -- probably 5% of our users would ever log into the web dashboard interface. (The whole point of using Groups.io for us is that it's email-based communication for very un-tech-savvy, non-browser-using people.)

Is there any point to the Photos section for those people? Or should they just email around attachments?

I'm imagining maybe like a "recent photo uploads" digest that people could opt in or out of.  Or a way for moderators to hit "email to group" on an album, with a message.

Ah, thanks, Shal.  There's so DARN many links and tabs and buttons, it's hard to find stuff sometimes. :-)

They all say, "remote error: handshake failure."  I read that to imply some kind of problem communicating with my email server host, but all of my OTHER email is coming through fine (including from Yahoo Groups).  I haven't changed anything on that server, but of course, I haven't a clue what my ISP domain host might have done...

I'd like to have the option of displaying time using the 24 hour standard in all areas. Saves a tiny bit of space and removes any doubt about am or pm. This would be related to the date format selection, but they should be separate choices.

I second that. For non-english-speakers, the am/pm concept might be understandable, but still is confusing.

Also, maybe, date format + time format + timezone could be default subscription settings per group. (Thinking of a group I'd like to set up, this would be very helpful for all members.)

Thanks J.
So it is a bug on the message view search.

After transfer, some of my members are bouncing. I checked one and it said something about greylisting and a url.
What does this mean?

http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/help/vodamail.co.za.htm

Regards
Green

The issue I'm raising is, what should happen when a user DOES change the
subject line via email? Should the thread split into two, as it does
now, ...

I wrote a mail to my group with Turkish characters. There was no problem
with my mail by after an reply, the mail turned to this (I had the same
same problem in Yahoogroups also:

Hi,

I wrote a mail to my group with Turkish characters. There was no problem with my mail by after an reply, the mail turned to this (I had the same same problem in Yahoogroups also:

-----

günaydın
koha konusunda yaÅŸanan sıkıntılar mı acaba tartışmak istediÄŸiniz
iyi çalışmalar
 

Shal,

Yes, I remembered that after the fact and just didn't edit it out. In fact, I mentioned it only in response to Duane, who was raising a different issue from the one I raised. I'm no longer so concerned about threads splitting when the user doesn't change the subject line. I do remember that issue from Yahoo, and I remember when it came up here and Mark's having addressed it.

The issue I'm raising is, what should happen when a user DOES change the subject line via email? Should the thread split into two, as it does now, in effect allowing a user to split a thread (and causing the moderator to go in and merge them back together if s/he wanted the thread to stay in one piece)? Or should the thread stay one thread and but with a new title, effectively allowing the user to edit the thread by changing the title? 

J

A member has asked me if there is a way to print a Wiki page?