Date   

locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

Maria,
It was perfectly clear.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2016, at 9:06 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

J

In case my prior post wasn't totally clear. I am not in favor of this feature- for our group - regardless of if/which limits if any may or may not be linked to it. For the reasons I shared ( as well as others).

Maria


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 08:43 am, Duane wrote:
I don't understand the question.

 Clearly, you don't.  I said:

  1. I turned on the "All Messages" subscription for the purposes of this test.
  2. I turned on the "always want" feature.
  3. I posted.
  4. I turned off the "always want" feature.
  5. I posted.
  6. What I get in my e-mail is precisely the same whether or not the "always want" feature is on or off.

If the "always want" feature is supposed to be doing something when someone is using Gmail and when "All Messages" is their subscription option, it does not appear to be doing whatever it is supposed to do, since there is zero difference in behaviors as far as e-mail messages go when I'm posting (and that was from the web forum).   If this is something that comes into play only when one is both posting via e-mail and reading via e-mail it would be good to note that in some way, because context is critical.  If it's supposed to come into play always, then it doesn't seem to do anything.

I'm also posting from the test system at the moment and was during the experiment, but this feature isn't new and I wouldn't expect it to behave differently in production versus testing unless a bug of some sort has been introduced.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

Maria
 

J

In case my prior post wasn't totally clear. I am not in favor of this feature- for our group - regardless of if/which limits if any may or may not be linked to it. For the reasons I shared ( as well as others).

Maria


locked Re: Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 08:45 am, HR Tech wrote:
I think it's enjoyable to stay within the interface and for the interface to give me other ways to interact with it/ use it.

 And that's just fine.

And I think that implementing something like this, while it might be very nice, is something that I'd put way down the list because the mechanisms already exist.

One of the things I've observed here is that there are a lot of people, and I will include you (I'm not trying to be offensive), who are the sorts who promote what many of us who've been in or are in the software business call "feature bloat."   One can implement all sorts of things, and one can replicate functionality at various places, but in the end there are decisions to be made.

I always favor simplicity, and clarity of function, over feature richness.  One need only look at any Microsoft Office program to see where feature-richness run amok gets you.  There are lots of other examples as well.  Change for change's sake is also something to be avoided and once you've got something that's wildly popular and widely-used one should think long and hard about "new and improved."

I don't think that Groups.io is well served by trying to be all things to all people and having "15 thousand knobs and switches" that one can twiddle.  It succeeds at its core functions quite well, and when features asked for are already largely available via other means, and commonly known ones, it should take a really, really strong case to justify their replication here.

One of the things I do like overall about Groups.io is its combination of flexibility with a distinct lack of frippery.  For myself, and others who feel similarly, I will continue to present this case as best I can.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

Maria et al,

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 05:59 am, HR Tech wrote:

(I imagine limits would be placed to ensure you can't really harvest emails).

In fact, if one is able and willing to place those "limits" on harvesting emails, then the whole fig-leaf argument goes out the window. If you can place those limits, whatever they're imagined to be, then place the limits and drop the fig leaf.

It's one of the other. You can't argue "we need the fig leaf" and then claim that "limits can be placed" on harvesting emails to avoid the problem with "send to me." It is the same issue. If you can fix one, you can fix the other.  
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Maria
 

I feel it would be very pleasant and useful to have a "my bookmarks" page within the groups.io interface. I love staying within the design of a platform for as many needs as I can.

For those on mobile web this would be especially useful. Bookmarks via browser in mobile web are no fun at all and take several steps. Whereas the way i envision a bookmarks button on the groups.io interface would take one click.

It would also mirror a feature I've seen on discourse and big tent as well as on other web forums.

I think it's enjoyable to stay within the interface and for the interface to give me other ways to interact with it/ use it.

Maria


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Duane
 

I understood your report. I was trying to make clear that it would only effect your own posts via email, and then only if you receive every message individually. If that doesn't answer it, I don't understand the question.

Duane


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

Maria,

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 05:59 am, HR Tech wrote:

(I imagine limits would be placed to ensure you can't really harvest emails).

And that creates yet further complications. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 07:33 am, Duane wrote:
The difference with Gmail will only show up on your own posts, with an individual messages receive setting.

What part of my detailed initial report, describing every possible tweaking of combinations of "All Messages" and "always want" resulting in precisely the same result with regard to my own posts was unclear?

That's the whole reason for my questioning what's happening here.
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Duane
 

The difference with Gmail will only show up on your own posts, with an individual messages receive setting. All others should work the same regardless of the "always want" setting.

Duane


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

 

Maria,

It may not be the only or primary reason. But if implemented, 'send to me' does negate the argument in defense of the fig leaf that emails are 'temporary' (the word you used rather than 'fleeting'), whereas the archives are permanent. That was my only point. There may be plenty of other reasons you or other groups would not want the feature. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2016, at 5:59 AM, HR Tech via Groups.io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:50 pm, J_catlady wrote:
That was what I'd predicted. Groups concerned about the fig leaf would want to bypass this. 

That would not be the only or primary concern for our group when it comes to this feature request (I imagine limits would be placed to ensure you can't really harvest emails).

There are other potentially more serious reasons why this simply wouldn't work for our group. Without getting in to specifics they have to do with ownership and usage, as well as participation term, changing these terms retroactively (without the consent of a large number of authors), and being forced to set new terms that we don't even agree with. Similar to the "forwarding" issue, doesn't work for us.

Again, this feature might be great for other groups. Just not for us.

In our group, if one want's to "save" a past post in order to refer to it one can bookmark it in one's browser.  If you want to reply to it, the web interface facilitates that and lets the person receiving your reply know that you "come from" groups.io. In Y! if the member is no longer in the group, the reply gets circled back to the mods.

Separately, I think I suggested bookmarking within the site in another thread (not following) actually bookmarking so that each member can have a page for his/her bookmarks from the archive and ideally could even organize these in a manner they find useful.

Maria



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Maria,

             Most of this functionality, though not all, is supported by the Bookmarks/Favorites/Reading List or whatever the web browser you're using calls it.  I use bookmarks and create folders for them to separate them out, do these sorts of sorts, etc., in both Firefox and Chrome.

             This is another of those situations where I personally feel that adding functionality that actually exists as a native feature of virtually every web browser to the actual site interface is "reinventing the wheel."
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Ability to Bookmark Posts within the Interface

Maria
 

I'd love the option to be able to bookmark a post within the groups.io interface.

I would imagine the "bookmark" to be in the "more" menu of the reply bar.

I would imagine a "Bookmarks" page in the user menu.

I'd love the ability to sort the bookmarks by author, date, or hashtag or even to be able to categorize these posts in a way that feels useful to me.

Also to be able to search from within the bookmarks for specific terms.

Maria


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

I appreciate the explanation, as it tells me a lot.

I use Gmail, but I get precisely the same thing in my inbox whether or not "always want" is checked or not.  Why is that? [Perhaps I'm being dense, but I can't figure that bit out from the detailed explanation you gave, Shal.]
--
Brian

A lot of what appears to be progress is just so much technological rococo.  ~ Bill Gray


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:49 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
Gmail, and certain other email services, use the Message-ID field in a message to detect when a received message is one you've sent; and then it hides the received message from you. I think that those messages may be findable in the "All Mail" folder in Gmail, but I'm not certain of that.

Thanks Shal! That's been driving me crazy - I've had members enquire why they don't get copies of their own posts in gmail from Y! and now I know why and what to tell them. How great groups.io has a solution for this. 

Maria


locked Re: Difference between Display Name and User Name ?

Maria
 

I'd also suggest revisiting the description for the Display name:

Right now it says: "The long version of your name."

Is that really what it is? Maybe it should say that this is the name that will be listed in posts next to your profile picture, or the name in the "From" field on the digest?Or other?

I just had a test member think that display name would be at the bottom of her posts and user name was her profile name that would be shown in posts.

Maria


locked Re: Send To Me (a candidate for the More menu) #suggestion

Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:50 pm, J_catlady wrote:
That was what I'd predicted. Groups concerned about the fig leaf would want to bypass this. 

That would not be the only or primary concern for our group when it comes to this feature request (I imagine limits would be placed to ensure you can't really harvest emails).

There are other potentially more serious reasons why this simply wouldn't work for our group. Without getting in to specifics they have to do with ownership and usage, as well as participation term, changing these terms retroactively (without the consent of a large number of authors), and being forced to set new terms that we don't even agree with. Similar to the "forwarding" issue, doesn't work for us.

Again, this feature might be great for other groups. Just not for us.

In our group, if one want's to "save" a past post in order to refer to it one can bookmark it in one's browser.  If you want to reply to it, the web interface facilitates that and lets the person receiving your reply know that you "come from" groups.io. In Y! if the member is no longer in the group, the reply gets circled back to the mods.

Separately, I think I suggested bookmarking within the site in another thread (not following) actually bookmarking so that each member can have a page for his/her bookmarks from the archive and ideally could even organize these in a manner they find useful.

Maria



locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

 

Shal,

A two-fer! Illustrates (1) importance of 'reason for edit' box and (2) inconvenience of fig leaf. :-)

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 10, 2016, at 9:47 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

[Edited Message Follows]
[Reason: Undo "fig-leafing". Inserted spaces to escape it.]

Brian,

There has been a recent post from an e-mail participant on one of the
groups I frequent that his own e-mail address is not showing up on the
messages he receives that he originated in various threads.
Probably DMARC. If the person uses Yahoo Mail, or certain other email services, Groups.io will modify the From address of their message to be from the groups.io domain, and their email address encoded in the user name part of the address. That is, their From will look like:

From: Display Name < user = example.com @ groups.io >

This is a work-around to the DMARC problem. It's a long story, but the short of it is that DMARC is an anti-spoofing technology that causes their customer's messages, if passed through an email list, to be dropped or quarantined on receipt.

Groups.io detects when the sender's email service is using that technology, and modifies the From field so that the message is no longer a "spoof", and this makes the message much more likely to be delivered to users of email services that detect DMARC usage on the receiving side.

I, and most others, seem to get something that notes that our own
messages are from ourselves "via groups.io".
That's a way that some email services let you know that the message came via a list, rather than directly from the sender.

I changed my subscription to "All Messages" and turned the "always want"
setting on, and I get an e-mail message with what I post here via the
web interface. However, if I turn the "always want" feature off, but
with "All Messages" on, I see absolutely no change in what comes to my
inbox at all.
The "always want" feature is a work-around for Gmail's default behavior with list messages.

Gmail, and certain other email services, use the Message-ID field in a message to detect when a received message is one you've sent; and then it hides the received message from you. I think that those messages may be findable in the "All Mail" folder in Gmail, but I'm not certain of that.

The "always want" feature causes Groups.io to replace the message's Message-ID field with one generated by groups.io. When that is done Gmail no longer recognizes the message as being something you already have, and so it lands in your Inbox.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum



--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Possible bug with "I always want copies of my own messages"? #bug

 
Edited

Brian,

There has been a recent post from an e-mail participant on one of the
groups I frequent that his own e-mail address is not showing up on the
messages he receives that he originated in various threads.
Probably DMARC. If the person uses Yahoo Mail, or certain other email services, Groups.io will modify the From address of their message to be from the groups.io domain, and their email address encoded in the user name part of the address. That is, their From will look like:

From: Display Name < user = example.com @ groups.io >

This is a work-around to the DMARC problem. It's a long story, but the short of it is that DMARC is an anti-spoofing technology that causes their customer's messages, if passed through an email list, to be dropped or quarantined on receipt.

Groups.io detects when the sender's email service is using that technology, and modifies the From field so that the message is no longer a "spoof", and this makes the message much more likely to be delivered to users of email services that detect DMARC usage on the receiving side.

I, and most others, seem to get something that notes that our own
messages are from ourselves "via groups.io".
That's a way that some email services let you know that the message came via a list, rather than directly from the sender.

I changed my subscription to "All Messages" and turned the "always want"
setting on, and I get an e-mail message with what I post here via the
web interface. However, if I turn the "always want" feature off, but
with "All Messages" on, I see absolutely no change in what comes to my
inbox at all.
The "always want" feature is a work-around for Gmail's default behavior with list messages.

Gmail, and certain other email services, use the Message-ID field in a message to detect when a received message is one you've sent; and then it hides the received message from you. I think that those messages may be findable in the "All Mail" folder in Gmail, but I'm not certain of that.

The "always want" feature causes Groups.io to replace the message's Message-ID field with one generated by groups.io. When that is done Gmail no longer recognizes the message as being something you already have, and so it lands in your Inbox.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Why can't we forward messages?

 

Jennifer,

I remember that Yahoo used to let members forward messages to someone
outside a group -- and then that option disappeared. Is there some
kind of convention against forwarding on list-servs?
That option disappeared when Yahoo found that spammers were abusing it. They could post a spam message in their own group - or any loosely moderated group - and then use a program to feed their entire mailing list through the Forward feature, one addressee at a time.
(As told by Gordon Strause, then Y!Groups Product Manager. Yahoo Groups was at that time facing a lot of issues due to programs written to exploit its features. A lot of features disappeared or became severely restricted because of that.)

So forwarding is actually fine in some of my groups. It inconveniences
us that Groups.io has no forwarding option -- since we often want to do
so.
In groups with public archives that is often the attitude, though it would probably be advisable to make sure that all of the members understand the policy.

Back at the time the Forwarding feature was removed from Y!Groups I suggested the "Send To Me" feature as a suitable replacement (because it would be useless for sending spam to other people's address). But that was never implemented.

At a minimum, allowing moderators to forward would be particularly
useful, particularly those of us who are control freaks and moderate
everything. Tonight I intercepted a personal email that had by mistake
been sent to one of my groups. When that happens, I send it along to
the intended recipient with a cc to the sender -- and the subject line
"Intercepted personal message". [This is part of my Humiliation
Prevention Service.]
It is probably best to simply reject the message back to the sender with an explanation. I would feel uncomfortable revealing to the intended recipient that a third party (me) had seen the information. Unless I knew the parties relatively well.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum

19721 - 19740 of 29450