Date   

moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

ro-esp
 

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for ‘anonymous
group’ idea.
Yahoogroups allows groups in which people can post anonymously, if they post from the web-interface.

Your proposal seems to do the same, without people having the option to show their email-address.

I'm not sure which one is better, or whether it's worth having both options.

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Possibility to set a group so that only owners/moderators can send attachments #suggestion

Marina
 

I'd like to have the option to set my group so that only owners and moderators can send attachments.
I'd like to be able to send occasional attachments, but I don't want all members to have the same permission.

At the moment, I have set my group to "moderate attachments", but this is a bit of a nuisance because I have to approve my own attachments.

Thank you.
Marina


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

The idea is not to even send the emails. The emails are what give people access to other members’ email addresses.

As for whether any aspects of the group are public or restricted, those would remain as separate options and not conflict with this.


On Sep 27, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Tom H <ve3meo@...> wrote:

I endorse that suggestion. The disappearing Wikispaces operated similarly. Posts were distributed by email but replies had to be via the website interface. That eliminates a lot of email signature bloat and lazy quoting.

Couple that with making the website publicly visible (images...) and I would have been more strongly tempted to migrate my Wikispaces site to groups.io. Instead, I'm off to WordPress.

--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

Tom H
 

I endorse that suggestion. The disappearing Wikispaces operated similarly. Posts were distributed by email but replies had to be via the website interface. That eliminates a lot of email signature bloat and lazy quoting.

Couple that with making the website publicly visible (images...) and I would have been more strongly tempted to migrate my Wikispaces site to groups.io. Instead, I'm off to WordPress.


moderated Re: web-based questionnaire for restricted groups a pressing issue #suggestion

Marina
 

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Nick Schweitzer wrote:

It would be helpful in our
group to have more information about a potential member besides their email
address, and a questionnaire (or even a text box) would go a long way to help
us in moderating new users!
I know that this feature is on Trello and I know that Mark has loads of different requests, but I am really looking forward to see it implemented. My moderators and I spend quite a bit of time soliciting prospective members to introduce themselves (as required by the Pending Member message).

Thanks,
Marina


moderated Web-only group #suggestion

 

This is a suggestion for a ‘web only’ option for groups. In a web-only group, everybody would essentially be set to either ‘no email’ or ‘special notice’. Everybody would have to access the group via the web in order to send or read messages. Nobody would have access to anybody else’s email address, which would be the main reason to use the feature. I haven’t thought this through and there may be some flaws in it, but it strikes me as possibly a way to easily implement the long-ago asked-for ‘anonymous group’ idea.


--
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


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 06:58 PM, ro-esp wrote:
Sorry to have to bring this up over and over, but this implies the problem could be solved by extending the autotrim-feature to individual emails.
That won't remedy the embedded sig line image problem or the W10 Mail PNG reply separator problem.

Bruce


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

ro-esp
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
keep in mind that much of the problem stems not at all
from the original post, but all the replies from subscribers that fail to
trim. 
Sorry to have to bring this up over and over, but this implies the problem could be solved by extending the autotrim-feature to individual emails.

groetjes, Ronaldo


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 08:02 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
My answer to the cluttered Email Photos album may have seemed a toss-off ("I don't need to look there"), but yours is not much less so: you wouldn't have one at all (or would have an empty one).
All photo *attachments* will still show up in the Emailed Photos folder. Only the embedded images will go to the bit-bucket.

On the other hand I'm fully on board with the storage concern.
Hallelujah, we's halfway there! :-)

I don't object at all to having such a control. Sledgehammers have their place. The good thing is that neither proposal (Drew's or mine) is incompatible with implementing yours in the shorter term. Just as we don't have to opt for stripping (or bouncing) embedded images, any group that does wouldn't need our options.

My purpose in commenting here is to explore whether there's a workable solution that resolves the /duplication/ problem, without also trimming away the originals.
I have no problem with your sig line suggestion in the earlier thread, but my concern about it stems from it being too pie-in-the-sky. Simply deleting the embedded images is a much easier thing to do and on that basis stands a much greater chance of being implemented within a reasonable timeframe.

The simplest way to kill a good idea is to pad it with "nice-to-have" features until the implementation becomes so daunting and the timeline so lengthy that the original proposal dies a natural death. I don't want to see that happen with this one.

Regards,
Bruce


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Bruce,

However, keep in mind that much of the problem stems not at all from
the original post, but all the replies from subscribers that fail to
trim.
Indeed so.

The storage limit and cluttered Emailed Photos album are both
legitimate concerns and should not be tossed off as unimportant.
My answer to the cluttered Email Photos album may have seemed a toss-off ("I don't need to look there"), but yours is not much less so: you wouldn't have one at all (or would have an empty one).

On the other hand I'm fully on board with the storage concern.

This option strikes me as fairly simple to implement, and I cannot
fathom why anyone would object to having the tool in our toolbox.
I don't object at all to having such a control. Sledgehammers have their place. The good thing is that neither proposal (Drew's or mine) is incompatible with implementing yours in the shorter term. Just as we don't have to opt for stripping (or bouncing) embedded images, any group that does wouldn't need our options.

My purpose in commenting here is to explore whether there's a workable solution that resolves the /duplication/ problem, without also trimming away the originals.

Short of the kind of automation I suggested (that indeed may be too complicated to be implemented, at least in the short run), I like Drew's suggestion (2), even though it may entail a fair amount of group manager attention to preserve the desirable images in a permanent album.

Shal


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 04:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
To me, stripping all embedded images just to cope with the proliferation problem feels like tossing the baby with the bathwater. In many of my groups there's a large value in being able to include illustrations or snap-shots in the running text of the messages. My goal would be to make that work as smoothly as possible in most cases.
I do understand why some people would choose not to implement this in their own group(s). However, keep in mind that much of the problem stems not at all from the original post, but all the replies from subscribers that fail to trim. 

And Groups.io has largely achieved that. Were it not for group storage limits I wouldn't even have much heartache over the duplicated images resulting from replies, or the superfluous images in some members' sigs. Yes, they make a mess of the Emailed Photos album, but that's a feature I'm willing to ignore so long as messages can retain their image components.
Different group owners have different priorities. The storage limit and cluttered Emailed Photos album are both legitimate concerns and should not be tossed off as unimportant. 

This option strikes me as fairly simple to implement, and I cannot fathom why anyone would object to having the tool in our toolbox.

Regards,
Bruce


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Drew,

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized
thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive
MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, ...
I like that suggestion, it relates here in the sense of providing a reminder of images lost, given the implementation of (2).

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be
retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically
deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them
to a permanent folder during that time.
I like the idea of allowing the group managers to move selected images to a permanent album (assuming the <img> linkage in the message body gets fixed-up accordingly).

But I don't see the need for a time limit on the ones that haven't been moved; they could just auto-delete as any old attachment (assuming the group's management has selected to delete old attachments when approaching the group's storage limit).

Shal


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Bruce,

As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid"
(and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. ... and
when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting
through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments
instead.
Ah, I was wondering if you'd allow attachments, or require them to use the Photos section instead.

To me, stripping all embedded images just to cope with the proliferation problem feels like tossing the baby with the bathwater. In many of my groups there's a large value in being able to include illustrations or snap-shots in the running text of the messages. My goal would be to make that work as smoothly as possible in most cases.

And Groups.io has largely achieved that. Were it not for group storage limits I wouldn't even have much heartache over the duplicated images resulting from replies, or the superfluous images in some members' sigs. Yes, they make a mess of the Emailed Photos album, but that's a feature I'm willing to ignore so long as messages can retain their image components.

Shal


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

Drew -- How does this address duplication of images in the Emailed Photos folder?

Your thumbnail suggestion has applicability not only to embedded images but to attached ones as well. While I agree it would be nice to have that, if we could keep the two issues separate and not confuse your previous feature request with a problem that only arises with embedded images I'd really appreciate that.

Thanks,
Bruce


On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Drew wrote:
Here's a suggestion...

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized
thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive
MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, as per following suggestion

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16208

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be
retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically
deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them to
a permanent folder during that time.

Admittedly, there is probably no need to permanently retain thumbnail
images of silly signature gifs, etc., but they will not take up much
space and will provide an archive of sorts of every image that
subscribers have posted to the group.


Drew





On 09/23/18 10:25, Bruce Bowman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:50 AM, Shal Farley wrote:


As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a
few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the
existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only
scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066
The "cid" version is the only one that I consider objectionable, inasmuch as these are the ones that proliferate.

An image embedded via a hyperlink (e.g: an <img> tag) is not objectionable to me, as it takes up no space in the group, or even on groups.io's server. It can become a problem later if the referenced, off-site image is subsequently deleted, but that's the OP's problem.

As for the "data" one, they aren't too objectionable, inasmuch as they are rarely used. But assuming such images do get forwarded in a reply, it would probably be best if they were handled in the same way as "cid".


I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and
perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but
operating only on embedded images.
I will take that as a bump. :-)


My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted
images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545
It would, but sounds so complicated as to never get implemented. As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid" (and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. This will take care of the sig line thing (not to mention that little 150-byte PNG reply separator in W10 Mail) automatically, and when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments instead.*

Bruce

*I acknowledge that I could be giving your average subscriber too much credit.




Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

Here's a suggestion...

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, as per following suggestion

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16208

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them to a permanent folder during that time.

Admittedly, there is probably no need to permanently retain thumbnail images of silly signature gifs, etc., but they will not take up much space and will provide an archive of sorts of every image that subscribers have posted to the group.
Sounds good.


YahooGroups automatically removed attachments from messages and put them in an “Attachments” folder in the “Files” section. This made it easy for members to find an attachment by looking in that folder, rather than having to find the message, which frequently did not a Subject Line that was the same as the Attachment’s name and therefore makes finding the correct message more difficult.

Additionally a Group Owner or empowered Moderator, could easily (find and) delete attachments or move them to an appropriate folder in “Files”. I would quite appreciate it if Groups.io would add a feature that would allowing deleting or moving attachments.


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Drew
 

Here's a suggestion...

1. All emailed images would be retained permanently as downsized thumbnails, viewable beneath their associated posts in the archive MESSAGES and TOPICS listings, as per following suggestion

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/16208

2. The original full-size images in the Emailed Photos folder would be retained there for a limited period, say 30 days, then automatically deleted. The OP or owner/moderators would have a chance to move them to a permanent folder during that time.

Admittedly, there is probably no need to permanently retain thumbnail images of silly signature gifs, etc., but they will not take up much space and will provide an archive of sorts of every image that subscribers have posted to the group.


Drew

On 09/23/18 10:25, Bruce Bowman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:50 AM, Shal Farley wrote:


As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a
few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the
existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only
scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066
The "cid" version is the only one that I consider objectionable, inasmuch as these are the ones that proliferate.
An image embedded via a hyperlink (e.g: an <img> tag) is not objectionable to me, as it takes up no space in the group, or even on groups.io's server. It can become a problem later if the referenced, off-site image is subsequently deleted, but that's the OP's problem.
As for the "data" one, they aren't too objectionable, inasmuch as they are rarely used. But assuming such images do get forwarded in a reply, it would probably be best if they were handled in the same way as "cid".


I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and
perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but
operating only on embedded images.
I will take that as a bump. :-)


My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted
images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545
It would, but sounds so complicated as to never get implemented. As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid" (and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. This will take care of the sig line thing (not to mention that little 150-byte PNG reply separator in W10 Mail) automatically, and when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments instead.*
Bruce
*I acknowledge that I could be giving your average subscriber too much credit.


Re: setting to moderate every thread a member starts #suggestion

 

Brilliant! Many thanks, Mark.

Cheers

Helen


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 01:50 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066
The "cid" version is the only one that I consider objectionable, inasmuch as these are the ones that proliferate.

An image embedded via a hyperlink (e.g: an <img> tag) is not objectionable to me, as it takes up no space in the group, or even on groups.io's server. It can become a problem later if the referenced, off-site image is subsequently deleted, but that's the OP's problem.

As for the "data" one, they aren't too objectionable, inasmuch as they are rarely used. But assuming such images do get forwarded in a reply, it would probably be best if they were handled in the same way as "cid".

I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but operating only on embedded images.
I will take that as a bump. :-)

My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545
It would, but sounds so complicated as to never get implemented. As a first approximation, I'd just like a group option to strip "cid" (and perhaps "data") images and send them to the bit-bucket. This will take care of the sig line thing (not to mention that little 150-byte PNG reply separator in W10 Mail) automatically, and when group members learn that their embedded images aren't getting through [perhaps] they will begin sending them as attachments instead.*

Bruce

*I acknowledge that I could be giving your average subscriber too much credit.


Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

 

Bruce,

And so, with some trepidation, I would like to resurrect the idea of a
group option that strips embedded images from messages and does
something with them besides letting them just proliferate in the
Emailed Photos folder.
As you may know, images can be embedded in HTML formatted messages using a few different schemes, only one of which ("cid") would be subjected to the existing group Attachments control, and apparently that is also the only scheme that gets listed in the Emailed Photos folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/11066

I would support changes to handle images in a more uniform way, and perhaps with a separate control similar to the Attachments control, but operating only on embedded images.

I just spent the last two hours deleting a bunch of dupe images linked
to messages saying things like "me too."
My suggestion for dealing with sig images would likely help with quoted images too.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/15545

Shal


moderated Re: Changing attachment size in a gruoup does not change settings for existing members

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 01:10 PM, D R Stinson wrote:
Photo attachments can be limited by resampling. Go to Settings > Photos > Max Size In Email and set to "Automatically resize photos that are larger than a specific size in emails." There is an option to select a maximum resample size.
Yes, but this is not the same as limiting the size of the attachment in MB. It does nothing to attachments that are not images. And an uncompressed TIFF file can be pretty big even after it's been rescaled. Ask me how I know.

Bruce

11781 - 11800 of 30095