Date   

locked questionbcc

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

 
 
One of my members and I each attempted to send an email via bcc. to our group here at groups.io and our group at yahoo groups.
The one which went to groups.io was rejected for both of us.  So both of us then sent them individually to groups.io and they were accepted. 
 
Is this something which isn't allowed by groups.io to receive an email from the bcc. line ???
 
Thank you
 
Cherrill
 
 


locked Re: Attachments

 

Ian,

Now I find that setting Yahoo to "no html" means that mails *with* html
are bounced...
That shouldn't happen, unless the message has no text/plain part.

I just re-tested this in my test group and verified that a message with both text/plain and text/HTML parts is accepted by a group set to "Plain Text" - the text/plain part posts and the text/HTML part is discarded. The bottom of the message has appended the notation:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A message with no text/plain part is bounced in such a group, but this has always been true.

I'll agree that " HTML - Include Attachments as links" is the worst of
both worlds.
Not me. It is still my preferred setting for Yahoo Groups.

Specifically because it means the attachments are available in the archives. Seeing today that Yahoo has broken the stored attachment feature, and now requires sign-in for access to photo attachments, I might have to re-think that.

-- Shal


locked Re: Attachments

 

Mark,

I personally _hate_ this "feature" of Y! Groups. All attachments sent
through groups.io are sent along to the subscribers.
The "Store on site" option for attachments is actually quite useful - when it works (or worked).

As originally designed and implemented the link provided in lieu of each attachment is a permalink which allows access regardless of whether the user has a Yahoo account or is signed in. A part of the URL is random-generated so that a link to one attachment cannot be used to infer a link to other attachments; nor can the links be used to access other parts of the group's web site without sign-in.

The key advantage is that allows members who read the group's archive or digest (rather than individual messages) to have access to the attachments. With the other option (include in emails) the attachments are sent to members on individual messages, but no other members could access them.

Groups.io appears to implement the long-sought (but never implemented) "both" option - an attachment is both forwarded in individual messages and a copy kept on site for the archive. I haven't investigated what happens for members on digest (pending tonight's digest of my test group).

Another touted advantage was a reduction in the download burden for members on slow, limited or metered email connections; those members could decide if and when to download the attachments. But with the supremacy of Webmail and mobil apps these days this seems a very niche benefit. To be a real benefit this would need to be a membership option, rather than a group option, and perhaps tied to a size threshold for attachments to be included or linked.

-- Shal


locked Re: Creeping Facebook

 

Ian,

"Could I just say hooray for Facebook. I read your same post on the
Yahoo site, clicked on the attachment, was asked for my password,
couldn't be bothered, so moved on.
That's odd.

The store-on-site attachments are normally (or have been, I haven't tested recently) available via the email link without signing in. Maybe when they enhanced the handling of images a few months back they broke or forgot about that feature.

-- Shal


locked Re: Attachments

 


On 15 November 2014 17:44, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
I personally _hate_ this "feature" of Y! Groups. All attachments sent through groups..io are sent along to the subscribers.

​Good; "Like" ✔

My preferred setting before "neo"​ was "no attachments" which meant no MIME and each post was displayed in the default style of the mail client.

So there were no big downloads of pictures to delay the dial-up connection, no viruses or malware in the html and every post looked the same - the default text and style - no 48-point Comic Sans in Neon Purple from the extroverts.

Now I find that setting Yahoo to "no html" means that mails *with* html are bounced - so I have to put up with "HTML - No Attachments" which retains that 48-point Comic Sans - or whatever.

I'll agree that " HTML - Include Attachments as links" is the worst of both worlds.

Groups IO should encompass attachments in-line or added.



--


locked Re: Attachments

 

I personally _hate_ this "feature" of Y! Groups. All attachments sent through groups.io are sent along to the subscribers.

Mark

On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Laurence Taylor <g7mzh@...> wrote:
On 15/11/2014 12:35, Ian Gillis wrote:

> So any future mobile app. for Groups IO shouldn't demand a password to see a photo.

Will attachments be sent with the outgoing emails? Yahoo has taken to
removing them and adding a link (which isn't always visible!), which is
unhelpful if you want to keep them - as well as adding an extra stage of
work for the recipient.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/9491?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



locked Attachments

Laurence Taylor
 

On 15/11/2014 12:35, Ian Gillis wrote:

So any future mobile app. for Groups IO shouldn't demand a password to see a photo.
Will attachments be sent with the outgoing emails? Yahoo has taken to
removing them and adding a link (which isn't always visible!), which is
unhelpful if you want to keep them - as well as adding an extra stage of
work for the recipient.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><


locked Creeping Facebook

 

One of the dinosaurs that I've mentioned before has started tinkering with the Facebook version of my main Yahoo group. After some lengthy email tuition he's managed to post a few messages. Since he's much respected in the group, inevitably he's dragged others with him - I hope Groups IO will fly before everyone becomes indoctrinated!

I've just observed an interesting effect. I'd enabled attachments on the Yahoo group to partially stem the leak of members by the provision of photos. The dinosaur posted some text with a picture on both groups. Here's a quote taken verbatim from a comment on the FB version by someone who was previously a long-term Facebook denier:

"Could I just say hooray for Facebook. I read your same post on the Yahoo site, clicked on the attachment, was asked for my password, couldn't be bothered, so moved on. On your post here I could see the photo without jumping through hoops." (She's using Gmail on iOS on an iPad).

So any future mobile app. for Groups IO shouldn't demand a password to see a photo.


locked Re: Site #changelog

Judy F.
 

Thanks Mark.  This is so refreshing to have someone that wants to make things easy and clear for the members.  Since a lot of these people are not computer literate or just enough to get themselves in trouble, every little bit helps.  Yahoo’s help is not helpful in some cases and in others, they have made changes and not updated the help. 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 12:41 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

That is a good idea and I'll add it to the todo list. In the mean time, please keep pointing out terms that aren't clear. I want to make sure the site is as easy to use as possible.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:

Mark, this is where my terminology of things is lacking, but would it be possible to have a ? by the options and when you hover over it, it will explain what each one does?

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05 PM


To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

 

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:

That's good; wording is unclear though.

 

Linda

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM

Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

That's exactly what it does.

 

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda

 

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM

Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Hi Judy,

 

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

 

 


locked Re: Site #changelog

 

That is a good idea and I'll add it to the todo list. In the mean time, please keep pointing out terms that aren't clear. I want to make sure the site is as easy to use as possible.

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 3:38 PM, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:

Mark, this is where my terminology of things is lacking, but would it be possible to have a ? by the options and when you hover over it, it will explain what each one does?

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05 PM


To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

 

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:

That's good; wording is unclear though.

 

Linda

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM

Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

That's exactly what it does.

 

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda

 

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM

Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Hi Judy,

 

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

 



locked Re: Editing messages

 

Me too!

On 12 November 2014 21:31, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
> Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).
 
That works for me, Mark, thanks!
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Re: Editing messages

I just pushed a change to the site where edited messages now display an 'Edited' label at the top right corner. That was easy because it didn't require a database change. Displaying who edited it (or even just Poster vs Moderator) would require a slight db change. Not a big deal if you guys think it's important.

Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:

I was only suggesting saving the last edit time and editor.. I think it is important for transparency to know if it was edited by the OP or a mod.

On 12/11/2014 10:34 PM, "Ian Gillis" <tessel.bas@...> wrote:

On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--






locked Re: Site #changelog

Judy F.
 

Mark, this is where my terminology of things is lacking, but would it be possible to have a ? by the options and when you hover over it, it will explain what each one does?

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

 

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:

That's good; wording is unclear though.

 

Linda

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM

Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

That's exactly what it does.

 

Mark

 

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:

Hi Mark,

Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda

 

 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM

Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Hi Judy,

 

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

 


locked Re: Site #changelog

Judy F.
 

Great! Thanks so much, that’s what I was hoping you would say. 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

 

Hi Judy,

 

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, J. Faulkner <jfaulkner44@...> wrote:

Hi Mark, the second item is two separate options, right? 

 

Judy F.

SW Florida - USA

 

From: Mark Fletcher [mailto:markf@corp.groups.io]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 7:26 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Site #updates

 

- Can now edit archived messages. Edit and Delete buttons now appear in the Inbox view.

 

- In the pending message page, there's now an 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender' for messages from members who are set to moderated.

 

 

Mark

 


locked Re: Editing messages

Linda
 

> Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).
 
That works for me, Mark, thanks!
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Re: Editing messages

I just pushed a change to the site where edited messages now display an 'Edited' label at the top right corner. That was easy because it didn't require a database change. Displaying who edited it (or even just Poster vs Moderator) would require a slight db change. Not a big deal if you guys think it's important.

Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:

I was only suggesting saving the last edit time and editor. I think it is important for transparency to know if it was edited by the OP or a mod.

On 12/11/2014 10:34 PM, "Ian Gillis" <tessel.bas@...> wrote:

On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--



locked Re: Editing messages

 

I just pushed a change to the site where edited messages now display an 'Edited' label at the top right corner. That was easy because it didn't require a database change. Displaying who edited it (or even just Poster vs Moderator) would require a slight db change. Not a big deal if you guys think it's important.

Edits are logged in the activity log (when and who did it).

Thanks,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:

I was only suggesting saving the last edit time and editor. I think it is important for transparency to know if it was edited by the OP or a mod.

On 12/11/2014 10:34 PM, "Ian Gillis" <tessel.bas@...> wrote:

On 12 November 2014 08:50, Chris Leong <walkraft@...> wrote:
What if there was a note indicating that the message had been edited by a particular user on a particular date? That might curb potential abuse.

​Chris,

That could get complicated; multiple edits and associated version control would produce a list of dates, times and people.

IMHO the single word "Edited" together with an update of the post time is sufficient.

And "potential abuse" - by whom? If only originators and editors are allowed to edit, where is the risk?

Also, maybe Ronaldo's concern about email subscribers not seeing subsequent edits could be alleviated by a resend after edit?

regards,
Ian



--



locked Re: Site #changelog

Linda
 

'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'
'Approve & Use Group Default'
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
That's good; wording is unclear though.
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark




locked Re: Site #changelog

 

Agreed, but I'm not sure how to make it better without having the button be really long. :-/

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
That's good; wording is unclear though.
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark




locked Re: Site #changelog

Linda
 

That's good; wording is unclear though.
 
Linda

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark



locked Re: Site #changelog

 

That's exactly what it does.

Mark

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Linda Star-Freedman <donlin2@...> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark



locked Re: Site #changelog

Linda
 

Hi Mark,
Wouldn't Approve and Switch to Default Group Settings be more useful? 
Thanks,
Linda
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Site #updates

Hi Judy,

When viewing a pending message, if the person who sent the message is set to moderated (regardless of what the group is set to), there are now two buttons, 'Approve' and 'Approve & Unmoderate Sender'. 'Approve' does not change the posting status of the sender.

Thanks,
Mark