Date   

moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 


Ths user did the triggering action 


The root cause of confusion is that the Log combines two actions into one entry.  One can attempt to "figure it out" or justify it combining them, but that's the truth.  There are simply and unequivocably TWO actions, not ONE.  No more, no fewer.  If the Log simply reflected the accurate sequence of steps, there would be no confusion (e.g., using JCatz e.g. log-speak:)

[username] action: Reported msg #nnnnn as SPAMtime: [timestamp[via email]

[username] action: Removed for reporting msg #nnnnm as spam time: [timestamp] [via system]

I agree:

- mea culpa. There’s no point parse this into a custom entry for each and every type logged action - that’s unreasonable and inappropriate (I didn’t realize initially that the [via xxxxx] was merely appended.)
- it should be @ the end for ease of understanding/scanning log entries. 
log-speak is very appropriate (as one alternative.)
- the modified entry example surely serves its purpose well.

However:

- the Log *should* be accurate and list ALL actions - by user email, by user web, AND by the system. 
- use Log-Speak, not try to construct full sentences (which contributed to this confusion) because one fitz-all doesn’t ever, ever fit all (the thread *proves* that.) 
- the automated spam mechanism is dumb.  If a user validly reports a “valid spam", who gets *punished*?  The originator of the spammed message or the innocent who reported the offender?
 
The member doesn’t want to be removed from his/her group, s/he merely wants unwanted (potentially nefarious) messages to stop coming to his/her inbox.  Imagine the confusion generated and directed at octogenarians and nonagenarians who can barely hang on to the concept of the web and email and messages and spam and junk folders and contact lists.  Why are we trying to make it even more confusing to them? 
 
- “The system *should* send an email to the reporting, e.g.:

You reported a message posted by <mmm> [append other identifying info as appropriate] as SPAM.  
* Click this link if you want to be muted from receiving future messages posted by <mmm>. * 
* Click this link to report <mmm> for posting spam. *  
* If you reported that message as Spam in error, click this link for tips how to avoid this happening in the future.*
(obviously, the prose is subject to whatever appropriate tuning)

- The current auto-mechanism accomplishes zero to prevent the same “valid spams" from occurring again and again from the same offender.  
I’ve been thru this with recurring unwanted (seemed to be nefarious) messages from offenders — the offending messages/offender had to be addressed manually by reporting them to @support. 
- i.e., the system misses the mark by a wide mile as to appropriate handling of spam messages, spammers, and unintended spam reporting.

Just my 0.02


moderated Unable to delete pending message claimed by another Moderator #bug

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

I have a pending message on one subgroup (clams@tvam.groups.io) that was initially claimed by my co-owner. When I try to delete it via the website, clicking the Yes button on the confirmation prompt does nothing. No error message is shown and nothing is recorded in the Activity Log.

Regards
Andy


moderated Re: Expire invitations after 14 days #suggestion

 

Thanks Shal,

Yes, Bruce pointed this out to me. I didn't know it worked like that. Would it
not be better if it did not have that function, but simply required an email
reply? The recipient must already be using an email client to read the
invitation, so simply replying to it would accept the invitation but nothing
else. That would, I think, remove the need for any expiry date.

Jim

On 18 Apr 2021 at 23:04, Shal Farley wrote:

Jim,

> I don't see how it can give access to his/her account or to the system
> to anyone else. It isn't like a login link, which could do that.

The invitation email contains a link "accept the invitation" which IS
effectively a login link. That is the problem that was reported, and
which precipitated the shorter lifetime for the link.

While attempting to ask a question about invitations an invitee posted
the text of a received invitation, including that link, on a public
forum. I tested it, and it did indeed log me in to the invitee's
account. I was able then to access the content of a private, restricted
group of which the invitee happened to be a member (and I not).

Shal






moderated Re: Expire invitations after 14 days #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:04 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
The invitation email contains a link "accept the invitation" which IS
effectively a login link. That is the problem that was reported,  ...
I noticed a similar security problem when my group first migrated to groups.io in 2019. I had set up a small task force to evaluate Mark's software before bringing all 1,000 members over from yahoo.com. Anyway, there's a footer at the end of every message distributed to my group:

-=-=-
Group Owner: main+owner@t-vog.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main/leave/[redacted]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 
During the exploratory period I noticed that people were posting replies to messages and quoting everything in the original message, including this "unsubscribe" link. This of course meant that any member in the group could unsubscribe the careless poster, if he wanted to, and knew how.

I believe I've educated my group members well enough that this never happens any more. At least, I haven't seen it in over a year. But careless people can definitely cause problems with "encrypted" links. Those ought not fall into the wrong hands. And it might make sense to strip them out of incoming messages from groups.io members. I told everybody this can only happen if you reply by email, and encouraged everybody to post their messages from the web site. But people are lazy, and sometimes careless. There's no way to "fix" that.
--
David Bryant
Canyon Lake, Texas
https://t-vog.groups.io/g/main    https://davidcbryant.net


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:36 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam
typo - marking the message as spam
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

Here's a suggestion besides the commas or the dash or the upper-casing. It seems to be the sentence format that's bothering some of you. So do away with that and don't even try to make the entry into a sentence. Just write something like this -

user: [user name] action: [user action] time: [timestamp] result: [e.g., was removed] [via email or web]

You could put the via email or via web abter the timestamp if that helps some of you. I myself would still keep it at the end to create shorter reading.
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 06:30 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
The user did not remove him/herself
Ths user did the triggering action (in this case, marking themselves as spam), and that is always the case in these log entries. The log entry always refers to the user's originating action.
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:56 AM, Andy wrote:
It really does not matter to me that you want to treat the Activity log as if it might be classical literature.  I do not. 
You're the one who wants it to be literature, classical or otherwise. I keep saying it's not literature and it shouldn't be. Read my posts. It's a simple log, and as such, it should be allowed to speak log-speak as long as its syntax is made clear in some form, be that documention, Duane's commas, or other..

sure enough it applies to many others in addition, and surely the fact that I noticed it for only one case does not matter, does it?
It does not matter. What matters is that you can't fix just this particular entry. You would have to go through and create individually customized syntax for each and every log entry with the issue or the potential issue. It's a log entry! It's a who, what, when, and how: the member, the action, the tie, and how (email or web). Keep it that way. Clarify it by upper-casing the how, if you like, or by separating the how to make parsing easier. But don't mess with it.

--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 


t’s completely clear that the tag “via email” or “ via web” refers to the user’s, not the system’s, action.

Not true.. 
The user did not remove him/herself.    The user took no action in the removal, were it via the web or via email. 
If the user was the one taking the action then the user would have chosen "don't remove me".  LOL!

Not seeking perfect literature  HOWEVER following the basic rules of technical writing (which is what this is, not literature,) always reveals the fallacies and inaccuracies in the prose versus the intended (accurate) meaning.  The log entries and the actual intended meaning (my last post) are NOT equivalent.
The log should differentiate between USER (member) actions and SYSTEM actions over which the USER has no control and no input.

If the intention is that log entries be accurate, there would be three actions listed. If Mark doesn't want the log entries accurate then he can do whatever he wants to and it doesn't really matter.  Hey, why not make everything in the log or in the documentation inaccurate?  Who cares, right?  We'll just interpret it however we care to because "we know what he really means."

1) <emailaddress> reported message #nnnn as spam {email}*
2) <email address> removed and notified for reporting message #nnnn as spam {system}*
3) <email address> resumed membership {web}*

No ambiguities, no incorrect entries, no muss, no fuss, no drips, no runs, no errors.

* Add "{via" if you care to, but it's nothing more than unnecessary fluff.



moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Duane
 

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 04:56 AM, Andy wrote:
My assumption is that the actual activity data is not stored as human-readable text files with text sentences.
I suspect that's incorrect.  I base this on the fact that if you go to an old log entry for something that has been deleted, the link will still try to take you to it.  Also that you can download the log and regenerating it every time it's accessed would be a lot of unneeded loading.  I believe the entry is generated programmatically when the event occurs and stored in a file.  If so, it may not be too difficult to alter the sequence of information entry into the log.

The 'via email' or 'via web' have been at the end of the entries since day one, so most folks are already familiar with what they mean.  Rearranging the information now will likely confuse those that are used to the current layout, at least for awhile.  To me, it comes down to we adapt or you do.

Duane


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

J,

My assumption is that the actual activity data is not stored as human-readable text files with text sentences.  I'd assume that there is a bit (or a few bits) that means, "This person was removed because they marked a message as spam", or perhaps one bit that says "This person was removed" and another bit that says "Because they marked a message as spam" along with other information that says who and when.  Then when we humans click the "Activity" link, some code at Groups.io translates that bit or those bits into a string of human-readable text that we call a sentence.

Therefore, the change would be to the code that converts the binary information into a readable sentence -- changing the sentence from something that is incorrect, into something that is not incorrect.  It is not a "one by one" thing nor is it "creating a customized log entry for each".  It is fixing it.  To make it right.  So that it is not wrong.

Why do you imply that this would be a bad thing to do?

It really does not matter to me that you want to treat the Activity log as if it might be classical literature.  I do not.  But I want the Activity log to be correct.  Currently, it is not.  I think it would be an improvement to Groups.io if it were changed to make it correct.

Putting "via email" at the end is syntactically wrong because it modifies what came immediately before it, which is the fact that the member was removed, and that's not what happened.  Currently what it says in the Activity log is incorrect information.  I noticed this with the entries about removing members because of spam, but sure enough it applies to many others in addition, and surely the fact that I noticed it for only one case does not matter, does it?

Andy


moderated Re: Expire invitations after 14 days #suggestion

 

Jim,

I don't see how it can give access to his/her account or to the system
to anyone else. It isn't like a login link, which could do that.
The invitation email contains a link "accept the invitation" which IS effectively a login link. That is the problem that was reported, and which precipitated the shorter lifetime for the link.

While attempting to ask a question about invitations an invitee posted the text of a received invitation, including that link, on a public forum. I tested it, and it did indeed log me in to the invitee's account. I was able then to access the content of a private, restricted group of which the invitee happened to be a member (and I not).

Shal


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 07:16 PM, Andy wrote:
I suggested an improvement to make them less inaccurate. 
You suggested an improvement to make *one* of them less inaccurate [sic]. Your approach to improvment would require going through each activity one by one and creating a customized log entry for each. To me that would be completely inappropriate for this setting. It's a log entry. It's not literature. Duane's "powerful comma," or my dash, or making them upper case, are improvements that would apply generally. Even if Mark were to judge the one-by-one approach worthwhile, I myself would prefer the consistency of seeing "via email" or "via web" always in one place (beginning or end, and to me, the end is better because putting them at the beginning bogs them down).
 
--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

But that's the thing.  It was NOT "completely clear" that the words "via email" meant what the user did.

Its meaning was more clear only after extended examination and consideration.  But that's not what the sentence says.  Even if I know what it was supposed to mean, that is not what it says.

I get it that many of the log entries are similarly flawed.  I suggested an improvement to make them less inaccurate.  Putting it in documents that "blue" means "red" might work for you, but not for me, and I dare say, not for most.

Andy


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

Have a look at the rest of the log entries. Most of them suffer from the same problem. I don’t think we’re aiming for great literature here. It’s a log entry. It’s meaning is whatever groups.io (I.e., Mark) decides it is. It’s completely clear that the tag “via email” or “ via web” refers to the user’s, not the system’s, action. So put that in the documentation. Separate it by a coma or a dash. Put it in all caps. Whatever. This really seems to me not an issue.


On Apr 18, 2021, at 7:01 PM, Andy <AI.egrps+io@...> wrote:

re: "<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed, via email"

Even with a comma (or a dash), it still looks like they were removed via email.

Andy

--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

Andy
 

re: "<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed, via email"

Even with a comma (or a dash), it still looks like they were removed via email.

Andy


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

And *my* point was that the system can’t  be bothered, and shouldn’t have to be bothered, to figure out which actions can only be achieved one way or the other just for the purposes of a log entry. It just slaps “via email” or “via web” at the end according to what actually occurred, and I think that’s fine.


On Apr 18, 2021, at 4:51 PM, KWKloeber via groups.io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

My point (maybe not clearly articulated) was there is NO alternate way to be removed (am I wrong on this?) because of deleting a spam email.   One cannot do it themself “via web” nor do it themself vis email.  The whole wording of “how” (“via...”” the spam reporting occurred is unnecessary and the member is also not “removed via email,” the system  removes the member and the member is simply “notified” after the fact via email. 

--
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: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

to wit;

<email address> reported a message as spam and was removed.  

Full stop. There is zero need to add anything more. 

 

Besides does everything need to be  worded back@$$wards?’

The system removed <email address> from membership for reporting a message as spam.   Full, full stop.

The first lesson of technical writing: simple, least number of words, and whenever possible use active, not passive voice. 


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

My point (maybe not clearly articulated) was there is NO alternate way to be removed (am I wrong on this?) because of deleting a spam email.   One cannot do it themself “via web” nor do it themself vis email.  The whole wording of “how” (“via...”” the spam reporting occurred is unnecessary and the member is also not “removed via email,” the system  removes the member and the member is simply “notified” after the fact via email.


moderated Re: "Was removed via email" versus "reported ... via email and was removed" #suggestion

 

That's a good idea. I was suggesting a dash, but the powerful little comma is far superior. ;)
--
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

701 - 720 of 29629