Date   

moderated Re: AOL problem

Randy Thomson
 

Oops. I meant to redact the original message, and groups.io removed a lot of formatting, so the message below is sort of confusing. I’m turning it into unformatted text and manually formatting.
------------------------------

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Randy Thomson via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 11:01 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] AOL problem

J_Catlady,

Assuming it works as expected (or maybe not),
1. Email is sent by mailto:xyzzy@groups.io (aka groups.io/xyzzy).
2. Mail is received at destination email server.
3. Mail is examined by server and determined to be spam.
4. Mail server
a. Either marks message as spam or does not mark as spam
And
b. Either delivers it to the Inbox or to a Spam folder, or, heaven forbid, just doesn’t deliver it, in which case you’re *OL.
c. Then either
i. Sends spam report to groups.io, or
ii. Does not send spam report to groups.io.
5. Assuming 4.c.i., Groups.io receives spam report
a. Groups.io automatically unsubscribes member
b. Groups.io sends notice of unsubscription with resubscribe link to member.
6. If mail goes to
a. inbox, then member receives messages and takes appropriate resubscribe action.
b. Spam folder
i. Member notices “I haven’t received any messages from xyzzy lately, I wonder what happened.”
ii. Member thinks “I wonder if it’s being treated as spam.” And checks spam folder.
iii. Wallah! There it is.
7. Member designates mail as not spam, or better yet designates sending domain as safe, and moves mail to inbox.
8. Member re-subscribes using link in second email message.

All is well, and future emails are received.

There are multiple permutations, additions, deletions and variations on the above depending upon
1. Mail server behavior
2. Mail recipient behavior

So the answer to the question

what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before

is that, assuming the mail server takes expected action and the recipient takes the proper action to designate messages from mailto:xyzzy@groups.io as safe email, future messages will no longer be treated as spam and will be delivered appropriately.

Since the behavior of neither the email server nor (especially) the recipient is fully predictable, the process cannot be totally reliable, but (fingers crossed) may work most of the time.

I think a lot of the discussion has gone into how to make the process foolproof. IMO, there are too many permutations of fool for this to be accomplished. Either unsubscribing or setting to no mail, and simultaneously sending a notice with clear instructions is all we can do. My preference would be the latter, but I’m OK with either approach.

Randy T


moderated Re: AOL problem

Randy Thomson
 

J_Catlady,

 

Assuming it works as expected (or maybe not),

1.       Email is sent by xyzzy@groups.io (aka groups.io/xyzzy).

2.       Mail is received at destination email server.

3.       Mail is examined by server and determined to be spam.

4.       Mail server

a.       Either marks message as spam or does not mark as spam

And

b.       Either delivers it to the Inbox or to a Spam folder, or, heaven forbid, just doesn’t deliver it, in which case you’re *OL.

c.       Then either

                                                               i.      Sends spam report to groups.io, or

                                                             ii.      Does not send spam report to groups.io.

5.       Assuming 4.c.i., Groups.io receives spam report

a.       Groups.io automatically unsubscribes member

b.       Groups.io sends notice of unsubscription with resubscribe link to member.

6.       If mail goes to inbox, then member receives messages and takes appropriate resubscribe action.

7.       If mail goes to Spam folder, member notices “I haven’t received any messages from xyzzy lately, I wonder what happened.”

8.       Member thinks “I wonder if it’s being treated as spam.” And checks spam folder.

9.       Wallah! There it is.

10.   Member designates mail as not spam, or better yet designates sending domain as safe, and moves mail to inbox.

11.   Member re-subscribes using link in second email message.

12.   All is well, and future emails are received.

 

There are multiple permutations, additions, deletions and variations on the above depending upon

a.       Mail server behavior

b.       Mail recipient behavior

 

So the answer to the question

 

what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before

 

is that, assuming the mail server takes expected action and the recipient takes the proper action to designate messages from xyzzy@groups.io as safe email, future messages will no longer be treated as spam and will be delivered appropriately.

 

Since the behavior of neither the email server nor (especially) the recipient is fully predictable, the process cannot be totally reliable, but (fingers crossed) may work most of the time.

 

I think a lot of the discussion has gone into how to make the process foolproof. IMO, there are too many permutations of fool for this to be accomplished. Either unsubscribing or setting to no mail, and simultaneously sending a notice with clear instructions is all we can do. My preference would be the latter, but I’m OK with either approach.

 

Randy T

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 9:15 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] AOL problem

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 05:59 pm, ro-esp wrote:

What's keeping those later messages from getting stuck in the same spamfilter?

This is related to my question (two posts back) about the difference between this method and the current method, wherein the user gets an email with a resubscribe link. Currently, after someone resubscribes, what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before, i.e., future messages going into their spam? Is the current proposition different in that their configuration would somehow change to prevent future emails from going into spam?
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: AOL problem

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 05:59 pm, ro-esp wrote:
What's keeping those later messages from getting stuck in the same spamfilter?
This is related to my question (two posts back) about the difference between this method and the current method, wherein the user gets an email with a resubscribe link. Currently, after someone resubscribes, what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before, i.e., future messages going into their spam? Is the current proposition different in that their configuration would somehow change to prevent future emails from going into spam?
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Formatting Wiki Pages

Bruce Bowman
 

The wiki editor does not appear to support inline styles (they are stripped when you save). Even things like {float:right} are stripped. Because of this, I've had to resort to long-deprecated HTML usage just to get an image to scale properly and align to the right margin.

If there's a style sheet somewhere that we can apply (and is in a human-readable form), I would be pleased to use existing classes instead of resorting to this sort of kludging. Does such a thing exist?

Thanks,
Bruce


moderated Re: AOL problem

ro-esp
 

I'm getting confused here. it seems to be like this:

Some email-message from groups.io lands in somebody's spambox.
His/her ISP sends some message to groups.io requesting to stop messages.
When groups.io stops sending messages to that address, the subscriber can click a link (in an email-message or on the website) to resume receiving messages.

What's keeping those later messages from getting stuck in the same spamfilter?


groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: AOL problem

kr402
 

That sounds good 👍 

On May 9, 2018, at 3:30 PM, Tom Vail <Tom@...> wrote:

Is the advantage that the person still has
access to the group content and can still
post to the group, but just doesn't receive
emails?

Yes


moderated Re: AOL problem

Tom Vail
 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 03:01 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
Is the advantage that the person still has access to the group content and can still post to the group, but just doesn't receive emails?
Yes


moderated Re: AOL problem

 

What's being proposed is a mechanism that does not unsubscribe the member 
I understand what's being proposed. What I don't understand is the advantage of it over unsubscribing the member, especially when the resolution of it is so unclear. Is the advantage that the person still has access to the group content and can still post to the group, but just doesn't receive emails?
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Member badges

 

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 01:40 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
How about yellow?
That would work.  Or maybe orchid, orange, or mustard (assuming the same colors are available as hashtags.)


I've changed the NC badge to be orchid.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: AOL problem

Toby Kraft
 

J,
What's being proposed is a mechanism that does not unsubscribe the member when a feedback loop spam report message comes in.  The member remains subscribed but sending email to them is on hold ("Spam Report Hold" similar to Bouncing status) until (and this part is very fuzzy now) they resolve (most likely with mod/owner help) the situation that created the spam report in the 1st place.
Thanks
Toby


moderated Re: AOL problem

 

I'm sure I'm missing the subtleties but right now all a removed user has to do to be reinstated is click on the resubscribe link. They can conceivably do that any number of times, causing repeated removals and going blithely on their way. Is the argument that that's different because they had to have received the email with the link?
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: AOL problem

Bob Bellizzi
 

Final point.
With over half million users and over 7000 groups (last count I remember)
we would have scads of people, majority untrained, attempting what many  professionals don't know how to do.

--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


moderated Re: AOL problem

Bob Bellizzi
 

Tom, 
The effect of a message being classed as spam by the receiving ISP is far more serious than a message rejected for no such account.
The initial labeling of a message as spam sets up a watch on the sending domain and each successive message from that domain will cause elevation of the sending domain nearer to a threshold where the receiving domain will place the sending domain on one or more "blacklists", each of which are independent and has its' own requirements for removal from the list.
Allowing the recipient to simply reset the suspension up to 3 times increases the likelyhood of groups.io being blacklisted that much more.
I doubt Mark would subscribe to that.
I know that I wouldn't.  I've been the domain owner/technical contact and had to hire someone to assist us to be removed from two blacklists.
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


moderated Re: AOL problem

Tom Vail
 

Good point Bob.  I know it makes it more complex, but maybe it could have a counter and the 3 time it happens then the moderator gets involved.  And when the message is sent to the blocked user, there should be very clear instructions on how and what to do to resolve the issue.

Peace,
Tom


moderated Re: AOL problem

Bob Bellizzi
 

Allowing the user to simply reset the suspension is problematic.  The majority of members in groups, is unlikely to be experienced in the steps that might be needed to clear a spam flag their ISP set (e.g.Forwarding a copy of the message to the ISP at a specific email address, requesting whitelisting of groups.io.)
They are more likely to simply reset the flag and go on which can cause multiple suspension and eventually, blacklisting of groups.io.
IMHO a moderator should be involved (previously trained) to interact with the member to ensure proper action was taken prior to removing the suspension.
Letting just anyone mess with the possibility of blacklisting groups.io could be a plan for disaster.
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


moderated Re: AOL problem

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 09:15 am, Tom Vail wrote:
"Spam Report Hold" is better than “Suspended.”
Correct.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: AOL problem

Tom Vail
 

"Spam Report Hold" is better than “Suspended.”

 

Peace,

Tom


moderated Re: AOL problem

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 06:13 am, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm not sure what to call it
slammed
 :-)
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: AOL problem

Toby Kraft
 

Good idea, Shal!
I would suggest "Spam Report Hold" to clearly indicate why email is suspended.  Also, there needs to be a way to view the report that came from the mailbox provider.  As time goes on, I would hope that the ARF/MARF message format is extended to provide a field to communicate what actually happened which caused the report to be generated (user action, user filter, provider filter, etc).
Thanks
Toby


moderated Re: AOL problem

Tom Vail
 

Shal,

That is a great idea!  How about "Email suspended" for a setting name?  Are you thinking the user could clear (un-check) it, or would that require the moderator?  I would vote for the user.  If set, could then a banner appear at the top of their page, sort of like the "Your account has not been approved" message giving them (or pointing to) info on how to resolve it?

Good thinking.

Peace,
Tom

11141 - 11160 of 27945