On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:09 AM, Chris Jones wrote:

We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.

Yes, exactly. But the problem (I'm guessing) is that there's no realistic way, at least currently, for groups.io to know which groups require a response to the pending notice. It is conceivable that you could come up with a method for distinguishing such groups from the "non pending-response required" groups somehow, by having a separate category, and doing away with the confirmation email for those groups.

BTW, it's not only that the NC status remains in such groups for members who are groups.io "virgins" (my own term for not being in any other groups yet). It's that everyone, whether groups.io virgins or not, who requests membership in such groups is required to return not only the pending questionnaire but ALSO the confirmation 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

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 10:40 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

are EarthLink and mindspring somehow the same?

The information I found says they merged in early 2000, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EarthLink

Duane

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 02:11 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

I think the bottom line is that this is all very messy, one way or the other.

Having done a bit more "research" I have to agree. IIRC Mark's last "definitive description" of the sequence was in message 16380 of 19th March 2018, but no matter how many times I read it I finish up scratchng my head if only because from the perspective of a moderator's web UI (on a restricted group) web and email applications are treated differently in terms of when they make their first appearance. We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.

Having said that my support for  NC status being a standard filter on members remains.

Chris

Well, as a general statement no e-mail service providers should be blacklisting groups.io for spam.   Since you can't get a groups.io message without having gone through the subscription process they are, by definition, not spam.

It appears that no matter how often Groups.io's ownership points this out, they keep the mechanisms in place that, when brainless users intentionally mark as spam or when it happens accidentally enough times they blacklist Groups.io again.

Unless customers start screaming at their e-mail service providers about this each and every time it happens for a sufficient number of times it will keep happening.  It appears that presenting the facts to them from the e-mail list service owner, that they can check out with ease, simply is not enough.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)

Posts crossed, just saw Brian’s. Brian, are EarthLink and mindspring somehow the same? I did have one bouncing mindspring member unbounce after I sent a bounce probe.

--
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

Glad you mentioned the EarthLink bouncing. I’ve recently had a flurry of mindspring members bouncing. (Weren’t those the same, or one became the other?)

--
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

Sharon,

            This is an Earthlink issue.  They're "blacklisting" groups.io, again.

            See this topic on the Group Managers Forum:  Help: Earthlink now bouncing emails sent to *me* from Groups.io groups I own

            Earthlink users really need to start complaining directly to Earthlink support if there is any hope of this ever being fixed permanently.

 

--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 

     I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.

           ~ Jay Gould, U.S. financier & railroad robber baron (1836 - 1892)

It would be useful to be able to see a member’s bounce history — or if there is one, I can’t find it.

I’m having a problem with Earthlink addresses bouncing. Would like to see when they started — all on one date or what.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org

I think the bottom line is that this is all very messy, one way or the other. And people are confused by it on an ongoing basis. And when you throw premium groups and restricted groups into the mix, where the former can confirm members on their own and the latter often receive responses to pending notices (making NC completely unnecessary anyway), things get even more messy. I think cleaning this area up should at least be put on the Todo list.
--
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

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 05:42 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

I believe the sequence that leads to them showing as NC in a group's Pending Members list is when they are entirely new to Groups.io and Request membership via the web. They will go through the sign-up process, which will send them a confirmation email (or they may choose to request a login link), but a group moderator might see them in the group's Pending list before they respond to the confirmation request email.

Yes, I've just (re-)confirmed all of that. What still bothers me about this is that mods sometimes see NC members in the pending list, and other times, just because the person applied via email rather than web, don't even know that there's a membership request at all. The inconsistency bothers me, not just because of the inconsistency per se, but because I think it's misleading to mods. If it's not possible (or is undesirable) to put a web-requesting virgin member into the pending list before they confirm, then I think it might even be preferable to also leave email-requesting virgin members out of the pending list as well until they confirm. You've already tried to answer this below ("there is benefit to listing them so that the group mods can help them resolve their NC status") but that same benefit seems to apply in the other scenario, so why let mods see one kind of request and not the other, just based on the method the person used to request membership? 

Maybe I just need more caffeine again. ;)

Hatch open, ISS astronauts have visited inside the Crew Dragon (yay!), and they've retrieved some of the cargo it brought up for them. I wonder if it has "new car smell"?

I should have watched it instead of trying to go back to sleep. Instead I kept jumping up and making notes like "check the activity log and match against the date of the confirmation email" lol.

Even if it has a new car smell, I bet they couldn't smell it through their helmets or whatever. :)
--
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

J,

2. If a confirmation email is sent for each group, ... then I think
the pending notice does not even get sent to the mods of the group
until the person confirms,

I think that description is correct, for +subscribe by email, regardless of whether the person has an account already.

3. ... It seems to be the intent that they're NC only if both (a) they
applied via the email subscribe command and (b) they failed to respond
to the confirmation email;

While they would be NC at this point, they wouldn't yet be listed in the group's Pending Members list, per (2). I think the +subscribe path never leads to an NC listing in the group's Pending list because confirmation is required before they are listed.

but that they're never marked as NC if they applied via the web
and already have a groups.io account.

If they've already confirmed their address in their account they are not NC.

I believe the sequence that leads to them showing as NC in a group's Pending Members list is when they are entirely new to Groups.io and Request membership via the web. They will go through the sign-up process, which will send them a confirmation email (or they may choose to request a login link), but a group moderator might see them in the group's Pending list before they respond to the confirmation request email.

That seems inconsistent and puzzling, and confusing to mods.

As I recall, the reason for not listing the person as Pending in (2) is that the +subscribe email command might come in from a spam source or other type of bot. That could potentially flood the group moderators with spurious notices and spurious addresses in their Pending list. Requiring that the address be confirmed as "real" first helps prevent that.

That same flood of spurious addresses could conceivably happen by way of web sign-up, but that would require that the crooks develop bots specific to manipulating Groups.io's web interface. If that ever happens Mark may have to change the web flow so that those also don't become pending until confirmed. But until such time there is benefit to listing them so that the group mods can help them resolve their NC status.

Hatch open, ISS astronauts have visited inside the Crew Dragon (yay!), and they've retrieved some of the cargo it brought up for them. I wonder if it has "new car smell"?

Shal

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 02:16 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

I'm only up to see the Crew Dragon dock to the ISS on NASA TV livestream.

I'm up now, for better or for worse. Some issues for the morning:

1. It's possible the test email address is not (in my tests tonight) receiving the confirmation emails because they're getting lost. That happened a lot in the past, and was discussed here at great length, and may still be happening from time to time.

2. If a confirmation email is sent for each group, and the person already has a groups.io account, then I think the pending notice does not even get sent to the mods of the group until the person confirms, only if the person applied via email. This was something I remember complaining about here in the past, because as a group owner, I'd like to at least know a request came in, even if the person had not yet confirmed the membership request - especially since the confirmation emails (at least at that point) were getting lost in several demonstrable instances.

3. I would like to get clarified under exactly what circumstances a pending member shows up in the pending member list as NC. It seems to be the intent that they're NC only if both (a) they applied via the email subscribe command and (b) they failed to respond to the confirmation email; but that they're never marked as NC if they applied via the web and already have a groups.io account. That seems inconsistent and puzzling, and confusing to mods.

I hope this can be clarified once and for all. Not sure whether this is a topic for beta but it came up in the past in the context of my (?) request to see pending members even if they have not yet confirmed - just mark them as NC. Why put them in pending and mark them as NC if they've applied via email, but not put them in pending at all if they applied via the web? This used to be the case. It may or may not have changed by this point.

Maybe Mark will jump in here and clarify this. Or maybe in the morning things will magically be clearer. :-) For now, I just wanted to put these out there.
 
--
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

J,

Each specific group membership requires a response to a confirmation
email, even if the person is already in other groups. But perhaps I
misunderstand what you’re trying to say?

I may have my terminology, or process, mixed up.

I'm thinking of the email address confirmation, relating to clearing NC status.

That's unrelated to confirming an email +subscribe command, which would be per group. I don't expect that members using the Request button on the web would need to confirm their join request.

Too late at night for me. I'm only up to see the Crew Dragon dock to the ISS on NASA TV livestream.

Shal

--
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

Shal,

I think I understand what you’re saying here, and if so, that’s incorrect. Each specific group membership requires a response to a confirmation email, even if the person is already in other groups. But perhaps I misunderstand what you’re trying to say?

--
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

Samuel,

But I (for example) am subscribed to many lists ... and it takes quite
a while for me to realise if I no longer get messages ... or if my
subscription didn't go through.

If you, at a given address, have ever received a group message then you aren't NC status. It is an address-specific confirmation, unrelated to any particular group subscription.

Presumably you'd pay more attention if it were your first Groups.io subscription, or the first one at a given address.

Shal

On 2019/03/03 03:45 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

The NC addresses get no group messages and if they haven't noticed
in a reasonable amount of time and asked +owner for help...

If one is subscribed to only one or two lists, then maybe. But I (for example) am subscribed to many lists (and I don't read every e-mail or even look at the list all the time), and it takes quite a while for me to realise if I no longer get messages from a particular list (due to whatever reason), or if my subscription didn't go through.

Samuel

Hide French quote archive
When you see:

Le [lundi ; mardi ; mercredi ; jeudi ; vendredi ; samedi ; dimanche] [1-31] [janvier, février, mars, avril, mai, juin, juillet, août, septembre, novembre, décembre] [1980-2019+] à [hour], [author <e-mail>] a écrit :

Like for example

Le dimanche 3 mars 2019 à 05:35:11 UTC+11, Sean O'Sullivan <seanosullivanemail@...> a écrit :

Actually not see like a mark of quote

Also this thread was started by someone specifically wanting to do ‘bulk reminders,’ which is what got me off on that track. 😊

--
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

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 06:51 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

it's not entirely up to me what to do with them

Meaning: I am loathe to simply remove bunches of NC members, no matter how old, from groups I don't own, so I take a more conservative approach and resend confirmation emails. Not that it accomplishes much in most cases AFAIK (I don't really keep track).
 
--
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