1. main@beta.groups.io
   Date   
moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

J_Catlady
 

Same privacy problem. I don’t give ANYONE in any group my last name and in a public group, as here, not even my first name. There are other users like me. I think requiring rhis would be a dealbreaker for the business, similar to FB’s ridiculous requirement about ‘real names.’


On Apr 11, 2018, at 10:56 AM, William Finn <liam@...> wrote:

Seeing as there is resistance to this, how about putting in first name last name fields that are available only to moderators or owners that way then we can link them back to the person but for everybody else they see the user created display name.

Then we can restrict modification to the first and last name fields so I can maintain my directory of the person's name linked to their email address and they still have the display name which they can modify to whatever they wish which is what is seen by everyone else

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 1:53 PM D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote:
Like J, I am hesitant to restrict a member's control over their own accounts. Having said that, I have a group that at one time had a big problem with anonymous trolls. The solution I use is to require a full name somewhere in the message or email address for all posts. (There are a few exceptions we allow where a person's name might bring problems should a quote show up outside the group.)

Members are set to unlimited moderation and stay that way until I know they're going to follow that rule. I'm very upfront about that rule and with treating people on the group with the same decency we would use for a person on the street. It's a little more work for me, but it seems to work itself out right away. I remind them that they're adults and have a few responsibilities to the group, and the privilege of not being moderated is tied to those.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.
--
J





--
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: Lock Profile Display Names

William Finn
 

Seeing as there is resistance to this, how about putting in first name last name fields that are available only to moderators or owners that way then we can link them back to the person but for everybody else they see the user created display name.

Then we can restrict modification to the first and last name fields so I can maintain my directory of the person's name linked to their email address and they still have the display name which they can modify to whatever they wish which is what is seen by everyone else

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 1:53 PM D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote:
Like J, I am hesitant to restrict a member's control over their own accounts. Having said that, I have a group that at one time had a big problem with anonymous trolls. The solution I use is to require a full name somewhere in the message or email address for all posts. (There are a few exceptions we allow where a person's name might bring problems should a quote show up outside the group.)

Members are set to unlimited moderation and stay that way until I know they're going to follow that rule. I'm very upfront about that rule and with treating people on the group with the same decency we would use for a person on the street. It's a little more work for me, but it seems to work itself out right away. I remind them that they're adults and have a few responsibilities to the group, and the privilege of not being moderated is tied to those.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.
--
J




moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

D R Stinson
 

Like J, I am hesitant to restrict a member's control over their own accounts. Having said that, I have a group that at one time had a big problem with anonymous trolls. The solution I use is to require a full name somewhere in the message or email address for all posts. (There are a few exceptions we allow where a person's name might bring problems should a quote show up outside the group.)

Members are set to unlimited moderation and stay that way until I know they're going to follow that rule. I'm very upfront about that rule and with treating people on the group with the same decency we would use for a person on the street. It's a little more work for me, but it seems to work itself out right away. I remind them that they're adults and have a few responsibilities to the group, and the privilege of not being moderated is tied to those.

Dano

----- Original Message -----

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.
--
J
moderated Re: Lock Profile Display Names

J_Catlady
 

I have mixed feelings about forcing users to display their first and last names (Facebook, anyone?). I, too, routinely set members' display names - in my group's case, to their first name plus their cat's name. However, I think the user should maintain control over their display name. If they don't like what I've set it to for any reason, they can change it and I would not want to disallow that.

--
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 Lock Profile Display Names

William Finn
 

A suggestion on profiles.

Adding an option to restrict a User from Modifying their display name.

I have a group and want to preserve first and last names as the display name in the group. Users have a different idea and want to use nondescript display names.

It would be nice if the display name modification could be restricted so a Moderator or Owner can set the name and the user cant change it .

Liam
moderated Mobile App

William Finn
 

I was wondering if there was any plans to build a groups.io app for Android and iPhone.

I have been asked by some of my users so I told them I would pose the question

Thanks

Liam
moderated Re: Suggestion - Access to databases be set at the database level

Jeremy H
 

Another change that is perhaps desirable is that for tables, 'moderator' and 'owner' authority should be separable, to give extra options for 'Owner only'.

But there may be a limit over management, beyond which Mark/Groups.io has to say: 'this is a simple database feature for an e-mail list system: if you want more, you to need to look for something else, this is beyond our scope'

Jeremy
moderated Separate Posting Privileges for E-mail and via Website #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

Coming form the 'Strip Out Embedded images', and other topics, it appears to me that it it might be desirable to make posting privileges (allow/moderate/not) differentiable based on whether the posting is be done by e-mail or through the web site, both as group default and member override.

So a group may be set, e.g. to allow posting only via the website; or that e-mail postings are moderated.

Thought needs to given to 'New member moderator' status - my thought is that the 'countdown' (after which it no longer applies) be based on all postings.

Jeremy
 

Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Jeremy H
 

This is perhaps a concept that deserves to be raised separately... will do

Jeremy
moderated Re: Suggestion - Access to databases be set at the database level

Jeremy H
 

There is a perhaps general issue: there a number of Features that may be restricted to Moderators, but which are not separately authorisable under Moderator Permissions (unlike more traditional moderator functions of managing messages and members). This covers - apart from Database - Calendar, Files, Photos, Polls, and Wiki (and maybe others); and there probably need to be separate authorisation privileges for viewing and modifying/adding/uploading. 

I think this has come up before, but don't know if anything has come of it. But I would certainly urge its implementation, as necessary functionality (especially given recent discussion regarding GDPR/personal data privacy).    

To some extent it is a reflection on the groups.io concept of a 'moderator' as any member (subscriber) with extra privilege, not only those traditionally associated with being a moderator (dealing with members and messages).

Jeremy
Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Nick Dunmur
 

On 11 Apr 2018, at 04:55, Tom H <ve3meo@...> wrote:

Another idea is a mode that requires all message composition to be done on the website.

I presume this would be an option, if implemented? All the folk who use our groups do so via email - pretty much no-one uses the web interface.

Likewise, any idea of auto-deleting images that are attached would be an option too, I presume, as we are a photography org, we wouldn’t want that to be de facto.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers
Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Tom H
 

Another idea is a mode that requires all message composition to be done on the website. That is, a one-way mail listserver. The Group settings could better control what is in the messages, e.g., no images in signatures, max size of image and other files...
Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

William Finn
 

Then how about an auto expiry of the images after a specified time such as x number of days , weeks, months or years so that folder self cleans 

Liam 

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 8:27 PM Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 01:09 pm, Ford Amateur Astronomy Club wrote:
Add the ability to not store the images no matter how they are attached or embedded so they don't use up space 
While I like this idea, do consider the implications...those photos have to be stored somewhere. If they're simply discarded, any subscriber who prefers to read messages online instead of by email won't receive the images at all. Similarly, if a subscriber sends a message with a big photo or two and another subscriber has his personal delivery settings to not accept something that big (see Subscription->Advanced Preferences->Max Attachment Size), they won't see it, either.

We are both managing astronomy groups and imaging is a big component of that. While I would appreciate the flexibility to do it, I suspect our subscribers wouldn't be very happy with us if we actually put it into practice. 

Right now, my problem is not insufficient storage, but scores of little photos of people's faces, 150-byte PNGs of horizontal rules, and garbage like that littering the Emailed Photos folder. Lacking any bulk delete capability, keeping that cleaned out has become a significant chore...and from my perspective the best way to address the problem is not to allow such things to get in there in the first place.

Regards,
Bruce

Re: Strip Out Embedded images #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 01:09 pm, Ford Amateur Astronomy Club wrote:
Add the ability to not store the images no matter how they are attached or embedded so they don't use up space 
While I like this idea, do consider the implications...those photos have to be stored somewhere. If they're simply discarded, any subscriber who prefers to read messages online instead of by email won't receive the images at all. Similarly, if a subscriber sends a message with a big photo or two and another subscriber has his personal delivery settings to not accept something that big (see Subscription->Advanced Preferences->Max Attachment Size), they won't see it, either.

We are both managing astronomy groups and imaging is a big component of that. While I would appreciate the flexibility to do it, I suspect our subscribers wouldn't be very happy with us if we actually put it into practice. 

Right now, my problem is not insufficient storage, but scores of little photos of people's faces, 150-byte PNGs of horizontal rules, and garbage like that littering the Emailed Photos folder. Lacking any bulk delete capability, keeping that cleaned out has become a significant chore...and from my perspective the best way to address the problem is not to allow such things to get in there in the first place.

Regards,
Bruce
moderated Re: Allow subgroups to have subgroups

Ginny T.
 

I too would find this very helpful and useful.
I'm also thinking it might be a bit of a huge thing to ask... :>)
But, yes, I would be one to support the request.
Ginny
--
Ginny T.  gttemari21@...
========
TemariKai.com
moderated Message-ID munging change

Mark Fletcher
 

Hi All,

Most people have 'I always want copies of my own messages' checked in their profile. This is mainly for Gmail (and some other emailers) that would hide list messages sent from ourselves. For messages sent by people where that is checked, we'd change the Message-ID field for the message to something new before we stored the message in the system, and before we sent the message out to everyone. So everyone would get the new Message-ID. 

I've just changed it so that only the original sender will now get a message with a new Message-ID. Everyone else will get the original Message-ID. This changed was requested because of in some scenarios involving cross-posting between lists and CCing messages, the old way would cause duplicate emails.

I've tested this and it should not result in any threading issues. But please let me know if you see anything strange.

Thanks,
Mark
moderated Feature Request: Unmutable Hashtag

Bruce Bowman
 

I have an #admin hashtag that I use occasionally to send announcements on system updates. It applies to things that might be of general interest but are not so important as to justify a Special Notice. For example, the recent addition of direct-mail capability via the subscriber Directory prompted a corresponding message to my members using this hashtag. 

I would like the ability to make this hashtag unmutable. It's not a must-have thing, but at least that way I have some assurance that everybody who is getting regular email deliveries has also received the notice. Perhaps other people would have other uses.

This would be a Moderators-only thing. I don't want subscribers creating their own unmutable hashtags. As such, this option would only pop up once you clicked on the "Use By Mods Only" button at the bottom of the Edit Hashtag screen (i.e.: the same way "Replies by Mods Only" currently does).

Just an idea,
Bruce
locked Re: EU General Data Protection Regulation

Mark Fletcher
 

Hi All,

I'm locking this thread. When I have more information from our lawyers about what we need to do to comply with GDPR, I'll post in beta@.

Thanks,
Mark
locked Re: EU General Data Protection Regulation

William Finn
 

Just add one more thing. I think that to make a point the EU will hit some companies hard and fast from the outset

I think their goal would be to make an example to show the world that they mean business.

I also believe that this would include some foreign entities beyond the EU borders to prove their point that they will find you and they will come after you.

Chances are these will be big fish, large corporations.

What this does not preclude the fact that anyone and everyone that offer it's a business that houses data belong to an EU resident will be required to comply with these regulations.

Some groups on here have mentioned that they collect personal information from its members Beyond email and this plane in which could be the real or fake first name.

I believe groups like this would be highest at risk as they do collect pii.

Beyond what the EU is doing these groups that you collect this type of information have also many other regulations that leads to apply to them and how that did is handled manage stored and disposed off.

For the majority of groups here it'll be a non-issue.

For entities that I just mentioned that to collect personal information they may run into issues and may end up having to defend the challenge of responding to such requests.

Even outside of the EU anyone who is collecting personally identifiable information must comply to FOIA  request also.

My advice is to not collect anything besides first name and email address which is required for log on to the group everything else should be excluded because weather in D you are anywhere in the world most countries have regulations about how to steal that should be managed stored disposed of I made available under the Freedom of Information Act or gdpr.



On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 2:52 PM William Finn <liam@...> wrote:
I do not believe the ICO would be selective based on the entities size but I do believe that proper expectations need to be set.

Does everybody in the world that houses data belong to an EU resident need to comply the answer is yes

What are the chances of these various smaller groups being hit by this and the answer to that is probably a lot less what still not impossible.

Should every group owner be aware of this and be prepared to respond to such requests for example the right to be forgotten or to be provided all of the information that involves them the answer is yes.

I don't think it is scaremongering I think it is people are unsure how does who really affect them as these regulations have yet to go into effect and it is unknown how the EU will respond to those that breach these requirements especially on a global scale



On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 2:46 PM Nick Dunmur <info@...> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2018, at 19:38, William Finn <liam@...> wrote:

Please get this notion out of people's heads that they are expecting it to eradicate information stored on people's private email it is not designed for that.

Quite. There is quite a lot of scaremongering and misinformation out there. The ICO are not going to be pursuing small groups that inadvertently have not interpreted things correctly -  one might get a slap on the wrist and some guidance as to how to do things if ‘we’ were taken to task over something, and the GDPR is not that different to laws already in place (Data Protection Act and the Privacy & Electronic Communications Regulations) which have been in place since 1998 and 2003 respectively.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers
locked Re: EU General Data Protection Regulation

William Finn
 

I do not believe the ICO would be selective based on the entities size but I do believe that proper expectations need to be set.

Does everybody in the world that houses data belong to an EU resident need to comply the answer is yes

What are the chances of these various smaller groups being hit by this and the answer to that is probably a lot less what still not impossible.

Should every group owner be aware of this and be prepared to respond to such requests for example the right to be forgotten or to be provided all of the information that involves them the answer is yes.

I don't think it is scaremongering I think it is people are unsure how does who really affect them as these regulations have yet to go into effect and it is unknown how the EU will respond to those that breach these requirements especially on a global scale



On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 2:46 PM Nick Dunmur <info@...> wrote:
On 10 Apr 2018, at 19:38, William Finn <liam@...> wrote:

Please get this notion out of people's heads that they are expecting it to eradicate information stored on people's private email it is not designed for that.

Quite. There is quite a lot of scaremongering and misinformation out there. The ICO are not going to be pursuing small groups that inadvertently have not interpreted things correctly -  one might get a slap on the wrist and some guidance as to how to do things if ‘we’ were taken to task over something, and the GDPR is not that different to laws already in place (Data Protection Act and the Privacy & Electronic Communications Regulations) which have been in place since 1998 and 2003 respectively.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers
12401 - 12420 of 28937