Date   

moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

All,

Moderating this topic as well. Getting repetitive and argumentative.

Mark


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:55 PM, Toby Kraft wrote:
Problem solved.
Right. And neither one of those needs to be masked. Obviously, the group address does not need masking. And the private address will be seen, in its entirety, at the request of the sender if they check "bcc me," so masking it is pointless as well. 
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Toby Kraft
 

Jim says he wants to see the address that the reply goes to.  No problem.  To the right of the From: add a To: field.
It displays either 
a) Reply to Group => the address of the group as in  main@beta.groups.io
or
b) Reply to Sender => the address of the sender of the post being replied to.  (which in the case of an announcement only group could be the Reply-To provided by the mod/owner if they specified a custom Reply-To when forwarding an announcement)
Problem solved.
Toby


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 05:48 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It's allowing users to pick and choose whom they send group messages to that's my complaint.
And mine.  Groups software has always managed replies such that they go to who they're intended to go to based on the configuration of the group.

If you don't trust that it's going to accurately do that then you had ought not be using it.

This is not new, it's not rocket science, and it's been handled smoothly for decades now.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:16 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It's not like refusing this feature request does anything of any real consequence in the realm of security.
True. But security is not my complaint about it. It's allowing users to pick and choose whom they send group messages to that's my complaint. (That and displaying 20 K masked email addresses. ;)
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Toby Kraft
 

Re: "request to allow a sender to insert a "Reply-to:" header with an email address not subscribed to the list was granted."
I believe you are referring to this change -> https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/23242689#17656,  If so, I don't believe it is germane to your request as this change only applied to mod/owners sending a message to an Announcement Only group in which Reply to Group does not exist.   It's a very narrow use case where the mod/owner forwards a message received from 'somewhere else' and they wish replies to go to 'somewhere else', not to them.  And only applied on messages emailed to the announcement only group, AFAIK.
The social contract of groups.io is still intact as the members of an Announcement Only group do not expect to discuss announcements, only receive them.
Toby


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:19 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
this goes back a lot longer than groups.io
yes, totally. i used groups.io as the instance of the model we are discussing, since this is, ultimately, about this particular product. ;p
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:16 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
It's addressed to the group and Groups.io manages the detailed distribution behind the scenes.
Of course. But it was my impression that you were asking the message compose space to display all the email addresses (masked) of everyone the message would go to. Perhaps I misunderstood your ask, but you emphasized "masked." Why would groups.io have to mask the group's own address? So it seemed to me you are, or were, requesting that all the email addresses that the message would eventually go to be shown. If, OTOH, you're just requesting this for private replies, I have no objection, as I've said.
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Jim,

          It is your original proposal that's senseless.

          On Groups.io, as in any groups software that has a forum interface, your Reply goes back out to the group as the group is formed.  I will admit that I have never used a "Reply to sender" group, but if that's what I'm on I have no reason to believe, if I hit "Reply to Group" under the forums interface that, in that case, it means it will go back to the Sender.

          All of this is, and should be, managed behind the scenes by the group software.  I cannot fathom what your issue is.  You seem to keep proposing solutions in search of problems that don't exist and never have existed.

--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 04:17 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
violates the whole model that groups.io is based on
You're 100% correct.   My point, however, is that this goes back a lot longer than groups.io.   Groups.io is a "new kid on the block" of a medium that's very old (cyber-speaking) with conventions and social contracts that date back to the pre-WWW days.

Like I said of myself earlier:  I was there, so I know.  [Usenet and similar from that area are the Grandparents of the entire milieu].
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/21/2018 04:08 PM UTC:
 
I also see that you are proposing the list be "editable." I think this is a dealbreaker. It would essentially allow users to pick and choose whom they want to send group messages to, and this is really a whole new feature that does not seem in keeping with the product.


Choosing to not reply to an address someone has inserted via a "Reply-to:" header is - in my opinion - well within the scope of the product. I suppose I could look at the source for every message before replying, but in a group where replies go to the group, if I don't like an added "Reply-to:" address I can't reply to the group (without spawning a new thread) because I can't delete the added address. Editable is a misnomer when it comes to addresses that I said I was OK with figleafing. The only logical edit to a figleafed address is to delete it.

This is why I didn't like the feature that allowed adding a custom "Reply-to:" address... and since that was approved I'd like to see that address if/when it is used... figleafed being OK.

If you want to talk about "in keeping with the product" I think anonymous (invisible) reply addresses aren't "in keeping with the product."

Remember... this only applies to replies made via the Groups.io web interface. For the messages I receive at my home email address... and the messages received by many others at their home email address... we ALL can currently see the full email address of the sender and when replying can see the full reply-to addresses. It's not like refusing this feature request does anything of any real consequence in the realm of security. It's a convenience feature... like some of the ones you've requested that could have been achieved by existing means, but with more effort.

Jim H


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from Toby Kraft at 9/21/2018 05:30 PM UTC:

I agree with J (again)
"Reply to Group" means exactly that. Anything else would seem to be a break in the social contract between groups.io and groups it hosts.

If such a contract exists, then it was broken when the feature request to allow a sender to insert a "Reply-to:" header with an email address not subscribed to the list was granted.

I'm only asking to see this address when replying via the Groups.io interface... figleafed being acceptable.

Jim H


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/21/2018 03:36 PM UTC:

Are you really proposing to display all 3,000+ or 20,000+ email addresses in those kinds of large groups??? I guess there would be ways of doing it without hogging the screen. But I'm not crazy about the idea, for many reasons. I do think showing the address in the case of private replies would be very helpful.

Aw c'mon! ;-)

Do you really think that when composing a reply that that reply is addressed directly to 3,000+ or 20,000+ individual subscriber addresses? Not likely. It's addressed to the group and Groups.io manages the detailed distribution behind the scenes.

Jim H


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/21/2018 06:10 AM UTC:

Hold on, I'm re-reading the OP and I meant to limit my agreement strictly to private replies. If what's being discussed is showing all the addressees any time the reply is to the group, I think that's a dealbreaker. I'm not sure I understand what's originally being proposed.

Under my feature request, all addresses to which the reply will go would be visible and editable (just deleteable would be adequate since there's no point to being able to edit figleafed addresses) when composing a reply using the Gio web interface. They would be figleafed per the settings the group owner made as regards email addresses being visible. I'd even be OK with ALL reply addresses being figleafed when composing via the Gio interface, regardless of the group owner's settings. In short, I want the option to not reply to addresses that I now cannot even see that I might be replying to.

Jim H


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/21/2018 03:44 AM UTC:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 09:33 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Not all groups are "conversation groups"... and with the ability to insert a"Reply-to:" header we have lost the ability to expect that responses are limited to group, sender or moderator (or some combination of those).
This is a case where the type of group is completely, utterly irrelevant. If you want what you say you want then manage a private mailing list within your e-mail client.

You need to go back and reread my original proposed feature request... as it has become painfully obvious that you either never understood it or else irrelevent conversation creep has distorted your memory of it.


Groups are meant, whether conversation/announcement only to go to ALL MEMBERS of a group when you reply to the group.

You keep saying that (and sayin gthat and saying that), but in doing so you're repeatedly ignoring the FACT that I've restated several (way too many now) times... namely that Groups.io permits establishing groups where the reply default is to the sender of the message, NOT to the entire group. You're simply repeatedly expressing that opinion on a service (Groups.io) that at very the highest level doesn't support your opinion.


You, for any you, don't get to pick and choose and shouldn't be able to via the group mechanism itself. You have lots of other very easy methods to carry on private conversations with select group members.

REREAD MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL! I don't want to carry on a private conversation. I want to know, if I compose a reply on the Gio site, where that reply is going. The reply address can be figleafed, but I want to know it's there and if it's not the only reply address, be able to delete it. If it's the only one and I don't want to reply to it, I can abort the reply.

I didn't like the earlier suggestion, since implemented as far as I can recall, allowing folks to insert their own "Reply-to:" headers... and my feature request is my way of being able to "opt out" of replying to those "Reply-to:" addresses that I now can't even see are there is composing a reply via the Gio interface.


I just don't get why people want to circumvent the core feature of a medium that has been in existence as long as this one.

You only think some sort of core feature is being circumvented because you refuse to understand that we already have groups in which all replies go only to the original sender, not to the group. You argue that that's not how "groups" should work, but the reality is that "Reply to Sender" (not to the entire group) is one option for how they do work on Gio if the group owner sets them up to do so.


I've been around since the days of Usenet. You never got to "pick and choose" who you were responding to when you sent a reply to a group message or created a new message going out to the group.

Really? I've been around since then also and I was always able to "pick and choose." I was always able to read an article ("messages" are called "articles" on Usenet) from let's say "newsgroup.one" ("groups" on Usenet are called "newsgroups") and before sending a reply I could (as pointless as it may seem) change the newsgroup being sent to to "newsgroup.two" or whatever. I could also add additional newsgroups to the reply. I could also respond via email or via both Usenet and email. In fact, via both was the preferred reply method in the earlier days, but is seriously frowned upon now. And for messages sent to several newsgroups, I could choose to reply to some subset of the original newsgroups, or to add additional ones of my own. If you couldn't do this, then you had one heck of a lousy news reading program.


I, as a member of a group, have every right to expect that anything not sent as a private message is going out to the group, not the members of your choosing (for any you, not you personally).

I expected a reply to a Gio message to go to the group, sender, moderator (or some combination of those) up until the feature allowing senders to insert their own "Reply-to:" header was added. I didn't want that feature because we can't see when it's being used. My feature request would let us see when it's being applied. As such, in light of the ability to insert "Reply-to:" headers that direct replies to somewhere you currently can't see when composing a reply via the Groups.io interface - rather than just to the entire group - I'd think you'd be in favor of this feature request.

Remember... figleafing of that soon to be (hopefully) visible reply address would be per the owner's settings for the group. Or they can all be figleafed regardless of owner settings.

Jim H


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:58 PM, Duane wrote:
or it's a Reply-To-Sender group
also, or if it's a Reply To Sender topic, via a hashtag (in which case "Private" and "Reply to Sender" appear in the compose box automatically, just as in a Reply to Sender group).
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:58 PM, Duane wrote:
How about if the masked email address is all that's shown (non-editable) AND only after you select Private (or it's a Reply-To-Sender group)?  That way you could make sure it's going to the person you expect it to.
That's all great and would solve the problem I mentioned. However, it does not really have to be masked in this case. Once you actually hit "send," you see the complete email address anyway (unmasked) as long as you check "bcc me." So there's no point in masking it in this case, IMO.
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Duane
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 01:30 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
When replying to a message via Groups.io online, I'd like to see all addresses to which that reply will go plainly visible and editable before the reply is sent. Figleafing in conformance with group settings is OK.
How about if the masked email address is all that's shown (non-editable) AND only after you select Private (or it's a Reply-To-Sender group)?  That way you could make sure it's going to the person you expect it to.  If it's wrong, you could Discard and try again.

Duane


moderated Re: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:14 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:
If people can't accept the social contract inherent in a "groups media" then they had ought not be using it.
Another way of putting it: the proposed idea violates the whole model that groups.io is based on.
 
--
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: Groups.io Message Editor #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 01:44 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Exactly, break in the social contract.
I won't take one ounce of credit for the phrase being used here, but boy did it cross my mind last night. 

There are certain conventions/contracts very strongly entangled with certain media.  Groups, whether "announcement only" or "conversation" have been, since day one, understood to send any message intended for the group to the whole group.  One does not get to pick and choose who gets what messages, except for private messages.

If people can't accept the social contract inherent in a "groups media" then they had ought not be using it.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore

11761 - 11780 of 30035