Date   

moderated Re: Help to locate Members in the Directory and to enable easy Photo album 'owner' editing

Peter Rawbone
 

Thank you for your reply.

However, its not Editing the Album per se, its editing the ownership of the individual images within an album where a Search Box would be beneficial.

Regards

Peter

PS.  Hadn't realised I had liked my post.  Now unliked it. Thank you for pointing it out.


moderated Re: Help to locate Members in the Directory and to enable easy Photo album 'owner' editing

Chris Jones
 

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 03:30 PM, Peter Rawbone wrote:
A similar search box to be able to find the owner when editing the albums' ownership.
When a moderator selects an Album, and then selects +Edit Album the name of the owner appears at the top of the page, and is easily editable. (In fact the album's owner is visible on the thumbnail of the album) A similar edit of an individual photo's owner is also available once it is "opened" and Edit again selected.

Reassigning ownership can be tedious; as long as you know the "new" owner's Display Name then pressing the initial letter of that D/N will scroll through the membership list displaying those D/Ns starting with that letter is what appears to be a random order. You have to be watchful!!

Imports from Yahoo maintain the original ownerships unless the originator has left the group, in which case the album/photo is reassigned to the moderator who initiated the transfer from Yahoo.

Chris

PS; bad form to like your own post!


moderated Help to locate Members in the Directory and to enable easy Photo album 'owner' editing

Peter Rawbone
 

Good morning,

May I make the following suggestions / requests:

  1. In the Directory section, it would be really good to have a search box to locate a Member, &
  2. A similar search box to be able to find the owner when editing the albums' ownership.  This would be very useful after importing photos from Yahoo (or, perhaps, elsewhere) and to ascribing an image to the correct member - as opposed to the person updating the files.

Kind regards

Peter


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

'sending text that is controlled by a group admin to the unconfirmed address provides a path for malevolent group owners to spam unsuspecting addresses.
Shal,

True. In fact, I remember arguing that exact same thing a long time ago, since our pending message contains some text that we would not necessarily want broadcast to spammers. So I guess I'm not wrapping my head around your suggestion here: 
"Perhaps the Pending Subscription notice could somehow be used as an alternative to the address confirmation email."

I also continue to not completely understand why a confirmation process is deemed more important for +subscribe requests than for web requests. Anybody can easily go to the site and apply with various people's addresses, but it seems much harder to spoof emails.

I'm having deja-vu like we've had this exact same discussion in the past, or a version of it, so if we have, no response required. I'll try to find old threads. :)

--
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: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

J,

The idea would be a setting indicating that the group requires a
response to a questionnaire. If someone applied to such a group, the
questionnaire would be sent immediately instead of the confirmation
email, and if there is a response to it, the person would be
considered confirmed. Could something like that work?
Technically, possibly, but undesirable.

The issue for +subscribe is that Groups.io does not immediately know if address is legit, or if it may have been spoofed by a malcontent, spammer, or other cause. In that case sending text that is controlled by a group admin to the unconfirmed address provides a path for malevolent group owners to spam unsuspecting addresses.

For web Request the same danger exists: one can type any address you want into the sign-up form.

So it is necessary for Groups.io to use a minimally invasive message to discover if the address is owned by the person making the request, and to apologize politely if it wasn't.

Shal


moderated Re: With regard to Groups.io being blacklisted

 

Brian,

A user on one of the blind technology groups I moderate made the
following two posts,
The first one contains correct information that, as J said, is well known to Mark (and others in the email business).

In fact, Groups.io is already compliant with DMARC for messages sent by members whose email service have published a DMARC reject policy. This includes Yahoo Mail, AOL and others. You can see the effect in the "From" address (received by email) of messages posted by such members. This has been referred to with the slang verb "mung", as in "as a DMARC work-around we mung the member's From address".
https://groups.io/static/help#dmarc

The example failed DMARC because it was a message from a user of Gmail, and Gmail does not publish the reject policy for DMARC. So Groups.io passed the member's From address through unmodified.


In the second post, the only effect of having Groups.io publish a DMARC record would be for Groups.io to collect information about possible spoofing of its domain, and to tell receiving email systems what to do when that has been detected.

This would apply only to notices generated by groups.io using its own domain in the From address. This includes things like calendar event notices, member notices and mail sent in the name of a group's +owner address -- as well as messages posted by members whose address have been munged.

Most messages, from members using sensible email services, contain the posting member's From domain, and would be processed by the receiving service according to DMARC record (if any) of the posting member's service, not Groups.io's DMARC record.

Shal


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

Shal,

I’ve been suggesting that too. The idea would be a setting indicating that the group requires a response to a questionnaire. If someone applied to such a group, the questionnaire would be sent immediately instead of the confirmation email, and if there is a response to it, the person would be considered confirmed. Could something like that work?

On Mar 3, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Chris,

We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains
even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.
That's an interesting suggestion.

Perhaps the Pending Subscription notice could somehow be used as an alternative to the address confirmation email. I'm not sure what it would take to do that, I think the From (or Reply-To) address in the address confirmation email is specially coded to be unique to the recipient. Something like that might be needed to do this with the Pending Subscription notice.

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


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

Chris,

We then have the rather silly situation whereby the NC status remains
even if the Pending Subscription message gets a proper response.
That's an interesting suggestion.

Perhaps the Pending Subscription notice could somehow be used as an alternative to the address confirmation email. I'm not sure what it would take to do that, I think the From (or Reply-To) address in the address confirmation email is specially coded to be unique to the recipient. Something like that might be needed to do this with the Pending Subscription notice.

Shal


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

Bruce,

That makes sense. I knew I'd heard of some similar scenarios. So I think a category of group that requires a response to a questionnaire might make sense at some point, and could bypass the confirmation email.

Yes, the web questionnaire a la yahoo has been requested over and over again since Day One and I know Mark put it on trello at some point. He had a great idea where the questionnaire responses would automatically be loaded into a group-specified database etc. It was a beautiful pie-in-the-sky scheme. :-) 
--
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: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 02:51 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
"Wait. What earthly good does having a restricted group do if you don't require at least some information from the applicant?" Maybe some groups just google the email address or something? 
In my main group, you have to join the parent organization (and pay dues) before you are allowed to participate in the discussions. We use the Pending Subscription notice to notify people of this ("please wait while we check our member list"), and to redirect non-members to our web site (where they can download an application).

I suspect there are many other possible scenarios. 

A Yahoo-like questionnaire function that stores user responses has been an often-requested feature. That seems to have been fallen by the wayside. It's nice that folks have found a way to use the Pending Subscription notification to compensate, but...

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Bounce History

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:40 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
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.
Earthlink has a list of their related domains on their email support pages. There are quite a few, including mindspring.

https://support.earthlink.net/articles/email/earthlink-email-and-server-settings-by-domain-name.php
 
--
Gerald


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
A bare application contains no information
Right, Chris, right after my last post I realized the same thing and hit myself over the head, thinking, "Wait. What earthly good does having a restricted group do if you don't require at least some information from the applicant?" Maybe some groups just google the email address or something? 
 
--
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: With regard to Groups.io being blacklisted

 

Brian, True about water under the bridge! And that was possibly very helpful. Just wanted you to know.


On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 11:03 AM Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
J,

            So much water passes under the bridge in beta, and sometimes at whitewater speed, that there is no way I can keep up with it all seeing as I'm a drop in-drop out reader of beta.

            I know that Mark will not take offense (I hope) at an attempt at assisting, however late and misguided it may have been.
--

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)


--
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: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 05:52 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
A response is neither necessary nor desirable.
I would have to disagree there. A bare application contains no information on which a moderator can make a decision about whether or not to admit an applicant to membership. It is only only the basis of an applicant's response to the Pending Subsciption message that a go/no go determination can be made, especially if the P/S message specifically requests further and better particulars from the applicant.

Without that exchange the P/S message ceases to have any meaningful purpose.

Chrsi


moderated Re: With regard to Groups.io being blacklisted

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

J,

            So much water passes under the bridge in beta, and sometimes at whitewater speed, that there is no way I can keep up with it all seeing as I'm a drop in-drop out reader of beta.

            I know that Mark will not take offense (I hope) at an attempt at assisting, however late and misguided it may have been.
--

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)


moderated Re: With regard to Groups.io being blacklisted

 

Mark has referred to DMARC here so many times that I'd be stunned if he's not already doing everything necessary to pass. (Caveat, I am clueless about all DMARC issues. Just pointing that out. :)
--
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 With regard to Groups.io being blacklisted

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

This message is mostly aimed at Mark.   A user on one of the blind technology groups I moderate made the following two posts, and given what I know about e-mail under the hood I suspect they may have merit.   If they don't, that's fine, but it's always worth passing along something that may be able to help resolve this recurring issue.  There is a lot of overlap between the two messages, but I'm still including both below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may be possible that groups.io isn't being blacklisted
per say, but it's just not clearing the security filters of earthlinks
mail servers. I'm not a member of a google group or a yahoo group, so
I couldn't test their mail servers. I did however, find the groups.io
mail servers don't pass DMARC security protocols. The SPF record and
DKIM records did pass, however,
many sysadmins are using DMARC as the new gold standard for mail
security. If someone could check the headers of a google or yahoo
group email and check to see if they pass the DMARC test, it would let
us know if this is fixable, or would your idea of having earthlink
white list all of groups.io be a better approach to solving this
issue. If someone at groups.io looks at the following, it may shed
some light on the problem at hand.

for a DKIM alignment to pass, the "From" domain must match the "d="
domain of the DKIM signature.
The "d=" domain is: groups.io
The "From" domain is: gmail.com

For the SPF alignment to pass the "Return-path" domain must match the
"From" domain.
The "Return-Path" domain is: groups.io
The "From" domain is: google.com

One or both of those need to match in order for DMARC to pass. Now, we
are talking about a listserv, so I'm not exactly sure on how to go
about correcting this problem, or if it can be fixed at all, but I
wanted to throw it out there for you to investigate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't mean to disagree with you and Joseph or for that
matter, defend the actions of these large companies and their
practices. I only ment to point out this may be fixable from the
groups.io side of the fence. DMARC standards have been adopted because
of their ability to eliminate "spoofing' and other fraud perpetrated
by spammers to send, what looks like legitimate email, but in
actuality is just some type of scam or spam. Groups.io has accurately
posted the SPF record and DKIM key pairs, but there's no DMARC record
on file. Without a DMARC record explaining their mailing systems
explicitly, they are considered out of alignment. The groups.io
webmasters could create this .txt record and apply it to the DNS
record to show these hyper-active spam filters that all groups.io mail
is legitimate and should be passed through. Creating a DMARC record is
not too difficult, especially since a blind guy on a tech list has
done it dozens of times, lol. Anyway, without knowing the details of
how their servers are set up I can only speculate as to the reasons
why they don't give this a try. It I know some folks on the list have
had success twisting arms and getting some companies to do the right
thing, but I've never had any myself, so I thought I'd throw in an
alternate suggestion on how to stop this from happening. Hope this
message doesn't sound like I'm trying to undermine your efforts, that
isn't my intention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--

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)


moderated Re: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:55 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
a way to distinguish between the groups that require a response to a pending notice and those that don't.
In fact there's not even any terminology yet to refer to those two categories. Maybe (at some point, as part of an overall re-design) there could be a new setting to indicate that the group requires a response to a pending notification (possibly better-termed a "questionnaire" or whatever). For those groups, the questionnaire would be sent out immediately and the confirmation email could be dispensed with.  You'd have to come up with a name for the setting. ETc.
 
--
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: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 09:52 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
The incorrect assumption here is that the Pending Subscription notice consists of some kind of questionnaire. 
Hey Bruce, I'm not assuming that at all. I was distinguishing "pending response required" groups from "non pending-response-required" groups. And that's precisely the issue I mentioned: there's currently no way set up to distinguish between those. There's a way to see which groups have an active pending notice and which ones don't, but as you point out, that's not the issue.

So what I was suggesting (as only part of cleaning up the current mess) is the possibility of a way to distinguish between the groups that require a response to a pending notice and those that don't.
 
--
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: (from beta) Bulk reminders for NCs #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 12:09 PM, 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.
The incorrect assumption here is that the Pending Subscription notice consists of some kind of questionnaire. In the case of my primary group, this notice is nothing more than a notification that we are reviewing their application. A response is neither necessary nor desirable.

Regards,
Bruce

9721 - 9740 of 29656