Date   

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

 

Shal,

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:07 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

the key was that emails sent in the past aren't available to a potentially malicious member who joins now

and that was exactly what I was trying to point out. We are on the same page. I still think (as I thought at the time of the "great debate") that the threat is low. But if people are going to make that argument at all, then adding "send to me" *really* negates it. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


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

 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:07 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
"Fleeting" isn't the word,

Semantics. It was something synonymous. Or nearly synonymous. Ok, I found it: "disposable and temporary." Maria wrote:

"Our members have one comfort level with emails and another with the web archive.They feel these as 2 different experiences. One disposable and temporary and the other permanent like a digital tattoo."
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


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

 

J,

Yes, and even if it's not automated. The argument for the fig leaf was
always, "The email is fleeting, but the archive stays there."
"Fleeting" isn't the word, the key was that emails sent in the past aren't available to a potentially malicious member who joins now. Hence my suggested restriction of "Since I joined".

If the archive suddenly becomes sendable, that argument no longer holds.
Making the entire archive available to "Send To Me" would have that risk. It would need limits; which is something I hadn't considered when I initiated this thread.


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


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

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Hello All,

           As is well-known in these parts, I don't generally interact with Groups.io via e-mail, but I have on occasion turned on the various subscription options trying to test things out for myself or someone else.  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.  I, and most others, seem to get something that notes that our own messages are from ourselves "via groups.io".

           I thought this might be somehow related to the feature mentioned in the subject of this message that can be found on any member's profile at this page:  https://groups.io/editprofile?page=profile.  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.

           Is the "always want" feature somehow linked to digests, but has no effect on individual messages coming via e-mail?  I had suspected, prior to this undertaking, that I might get nothing in my inbox for my own posts when "always want" and "All Messages" was set on, but I do.

           I'm now at a bit of a loss as to what the "always want" feature is all about.  It seems to have no effect at all, but that could be because it only means anything when your subscription is not "All Messages".  What's up here?
--
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

 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:49 pm, HR Tech wrote:
'm pretty sure if given the option, I'd switch it off if it were optional.

That was what I'd predicted. Groups concerned about the fig leaf would want to bypass this. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Possible bug - Words in brackets at start of subject line

 

Jennifer,

Go into your settings and change the "subject tag." I don't use subgroups, but I would assume this works the same way for them.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


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

Maria
 

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 05:37 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm not sure what form those limits might take; one possibility is to allow it only for messages posted since I joined the group (messages I in principle could have had by email).

Because I'm not so thrilled about the way you get a flood of emails in your inbox when you start following an existing thread, I'd probably not be too interested in this feature either. Mainly, I don't think it's something my group would need or benefit from - in fact I think it might even feel uncomfortable to us. I'm pretty sure if given the option, I'd switch it off if it were optional. I'm not saying it wouldn't be helpful for other groups - just that it wouldn't be a right fit for ours.

That said, If implemented, I definitely agree that it ought to have parameters to prevent abuse and also take in to consideration authors who may no longer be a member of the group, and who therefore may not want their emails to become "new" again in someone's inbox.

Maria



locked Re: Why can't we forward messages?

Maria
 

In our groups we would want the option to disable "forwarding" (from the web interface) as it's against our group guidelines.

Seeing "forward" in the "more" menu would have a chilling effect on group activity.

So, if this is considered and implemented, we would absolutely need the option to disable it.

Separately, Jennifer, if you moderate all messages ( but don't receive them in your inbox after they post) you can get moderation notifications in your inbox and in each one is a copy of the message which in turn you can forward or reply to. Not sure if in the interim maybe that's helpful info.

Maria


locked Why can't we forward messages?

Jennifer Christian
 

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?

I realize that some groups want to keep all conversation inside.  But two of my professional groups are filled with people I'm hoping will serve as propagators of ideas to others.  Some members tell me they routinely share important  (educational, newsworthy) messages with their co-workers and colleagues.  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. 

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.]   Because forwarding is not possible,  I had to swoop, copy and paste it into a new email and in so doing the formatting got all screwed up.


Jennifer


locked Possible bug - Words in brackets at start of subject line

Jennifer Christian
 

Maybe I found a bug while fiddling with the settings for one of my groups.   

The MAIN group is called Praxis.  I had set up a sub-group called "Members Only".   When emails arrived, the subject line began [MembersOnly] which was too generic.   It wasn't clear the messages were coming from a Praxis-related group.

So I changed the name of the sub-group to "Praxis Members Only" and revised the email address to which messages are sent so it begins with PraxisMembersOnly@......com .  That has worked fine.  I thought that would also change the words in brackets at the start of the subject line.     However, it STILL begins with [MembersOnly] -- no Praxis.  Is this a bug?


Jennifer


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

 

Shal,

Exactly the same as it would have had I received the message by email when it was first sent. No difference.

It's not the same. Here you go on to state the difference:

Mark may need to put some limits on Send To Me to prevent automated harvesting of the group's message archive

Yes, and even if it's not automated. The argument for the fig leaf was always, "The email is fleeting, but the archive stays there." If the archive suddenly becomes sendable, that argument no longer holds. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Photos Wish List

weebeequilting <weebee.1@...>
 

Another wish from my group is to have the ability to sort all the albums like we can sort the photos inside an individual album.  Currently the albums are in alphabetical order, we would like the option of sorting them by those who have most recently been updated with new photos added.  As professional long arm quilters, we share our work with others and we all love to see what others are doing.  If a person adds photos but doesn't post a message mentioning it, we miss an opportunity to view some great quilting.

Janice B

New Statler Siblings Group with members from all over the world

I'm in AZ


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

 

J,

Of course, that would create a problem with the groups that insist on
the fig leaf for hiding posted email addresses, because the sent email
would drop the fig leaf.
Exactly the same as it would have had I received the message by email when it was first sent. No difference.

That said, Mark may need to put some limits on Send To Me to prevent automated harvesting of the group's message archive. I'm not sure what form those limits might take; one possibility is to allow it only for messages posted since I joined the group (messages I in principle could have had by email).


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


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

J,

I can definitely see why this would seem desirable at first glance. But
imagine a 100-message long thread with a title match but no message
matches within it. You'd have all 100 messages appearing.
No, of course not.

That's not what happens now - the subject match appears once. I'm not asking for that to change. Rather, I'm asking for that not to change (I don't want the subject match to disappear altogether).


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


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

 

Of course, that would create a problem with the groups that insist on the fig leaf for hiding posted email addresses, because the sent email would drop the fig leaf. You would probably have to make "send to me" disable-able so that those groups could maintain their (so-called) privacy. 

(At last count, as I recall, Mark had agreed to make the fig leaf an optional setting. At this point it's still universally in effect. I don't know what the plans are at this point.)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


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

 

Great idea.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: search within message view returns threads #bug?

 

Shal,

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 02:52 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

in the case of a thread where only the subject had a match I would not want that result to disappear from Messages View

I can definitely see why this would seem desirable at first glance. But imagine a 100-message long thread with a title match but no message matches within it. You'd have all 100 messages appearing.  In a foods group with a thread entitled, "What's your favorite fruit? Mine is kumquats," and 100 responses all of which have to do only with other fruits (no kumquats), I think a search that returns all of those 100 messages if someone in the group searches on "kumquats" is a bad search.

I see why, if you want to include messages with a title match in the message-view search, you'd include just the threads themselves there, as Mark is now doing, rather than all 100 (essentially unmatching) messages.

I would still prefer that those threads to show up only in threads view, along with all of the other threads displayed. I think that would seem logical and reasonable. But I can see an argument for both sides.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


locked Re: Transfer Partial List of Messages from Another Groups #suggestion

 

David,

I'm considering transferring my group from Yahoo Groups, but I don't
want to transfer all the messages.
Mark has been willing in the past to do partial copies:
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/7248

However, members of the old group may be interested in saving old
messages that are important to them. I want to let them be able to do
that before I choose to delete the old group. I don't see a way to do
that.
Point them to PG Offline. It is a commercial product but the free trial should be sufficient to that need.
http://www.personalgroupware.com/

Neither do I see a way to perform a bulk deletion from a groups.io
group.
Nope. Here's another person with the same request:
https://groups.io/g/beta/thread/494463


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


locked Re: Download partial message list #suggestion

 

David,

It would be nice to be able to download, for example, messages between
given message numbers. Individual messages are a problem because of the
"View Source" feature. I can't find a way to do this, but it would be a
valuable feature.
That could be handy.

Right now the ability to retrieve a copy of the Messages archive is limited to moderators (it is a tab of the group's Settings page). I assume you are proposing to add some form of messages selection controls to that.


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


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

 

In #9828 David wrote:

As a moderator of groups, I seldom have the need to download all the
messages. It's more often that I need to download a small group of
messages: for example, messages that I missed for one reason or another.
https://groups.io/g/beta/message/9828

For the specific purpose of catching one or a few missed messages I'd like to have a "Send To Me" option on messages in the Messages archive. This would send the message to me as an individual message, exactly as it would have had my subscription been set to Individual and I had not muted that thread (or a hashtag) when the message was first posted. That is, the email to send is neither a reply nor a forward, it is the original message.

The More menu seems a fine place for this.

The idea is that you might find (in a Digest or on site) a message that you don't have in your email, but you want to save it. Or perhaps you want to reply to it but prefer to compose your reply in email rather than on site.

It would also be useful in cases where a message was dropped or bounced by your email service, or where you inadvertently deleted it and can't now undelete it.


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

19741 - 19760 of 29450