locked Email address hide-n-seek


 

Hi All,

New thread, same topic. Here are some possibilities. These would only apply when a member is viewing archives, not the public:

A) Showing all email addresses.
B) Shal's suggestion of not hiding non-member email addresses.
C) Hiding all email addresses but making them clickable, whereas a window pops up with the full email address.
D) I could hide all email addresses but clicking them is like clicking a mailto: link, it'll bring up your email client.
E) Show all email addresses, with a per-group option to turn this off.

(C and D are proposed because that would make things marginally more difficult for potential harvesters.)

Personally I'm ok with showing all email addresses, because it's only for members, who get the email addresses in email messages anyways and by definition these won't show up in Google searches. But I won't do that unless it's agreed upon by the group. I understand that this is a sensitive topic.

For non-members/public, I'm thinking of one change: removing the View Source links to messages, because it's more difficult to mask email addresses there and the public doesn't need View Source anyways.

Thoughts?
Mark


 

Hi,

I would go with option D, in that people who really need this information can click it and obtain it using their email clients (or one can copy the address using context menu).

Cheers,

Joseph

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 3:29 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Email address hide-n-seek

 

Hi All,

 

New thread, same topic. Here are some possibilities. These would only apply when a member is viewing archives, not the public:

 

A) Showing all email addresses.

B) Shal's suggestion of not hiding non-member email addresses.

C) Hiding all email addresses but making them clickable, whereas a window pops up with the full email address.

D) I could hide all email addresses but clicking them is like clicking a mailto: link, it'll bring up your email client.

E) Show all email addresses, with a per-group option to turn this off.

 

(C and D are proposed because that would make things marginally more difficult for potential harvesters.)

 

Personally I'm ok with showing all email addresses, because it's only for members, who get the email addresses in email messages anyways and by definition these won't show up in Google searches. But I won't do that unless it's agreed upon by the group. I understand that this is a sensitive topic.

 

For non-members/public, I'm thinking of one change: removing the View Source links to messages, because it's more difficult to mask email addresses there and the public doesn't need View Source anyways.

 

Thoughts?

Mark


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Mark,

          For simplicity, and because it is conventional on the vast majority of public and private forums these days, I vote for option A.

          For the record, I have no problem with either options C or D.  My issue with all of this is that my participation on Groups.io is almost exclusively limited to "blind and low-vision-centric" forums/groups with the exception of this one.  It is a grand PITA to have to cut and paste an e-mail address that's done using written-out masking for blind web interface users.  It's also just so unnecessary.

          If a person elects to include an e-mail address, any e-mail address, in their message body it should be a simple click to either bring it up for copying or doing what you propose in option D.

          Since most web interfaces now already "mailto linkify" naked e-mail addresses most often option D is what happens, but with the e-mail address visible.  It's not the visibility I care about, really, its the ease of use that it is entirely reasonable to expect these days.  If it's not the intention of Groups.io to automatically linkify a naked e-mail address I'd actually prefer option D.

Brian



Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

P.S.  I'm all for removing the "View Source" link for non-members on the web interface.   It's a seldom needed feature to begin with, even for members, but I can't conceive of any reason for the public to have this sort of access.


Maria
 

I like D ( for the reasons you listed). I feel it accomplishes the goal of sharing contact info for the "plumber" with other members, yet makes it a PITA for anyone looking to harvest/collect emails for the wrong reasons, which i think is excellent.

and I think removing "view source" for public groups/archives is a great idea too.Thank you.

Separately, and I am sure this is obvious, but there have been so many posts.. we are only talking here about email addresses included in the body of emails - we are not talking about the actual member list ( which in our groups we keep visible only to admins). Right? :-S (not sure if that emoji will come through)

Maria



 

Mark,

Here are my thoughts on each option and then on the decision process as a whole:

A has my vote, and here's why.

(1) it has the greatest ease of use;

(2) it is the most consistent with what is seen in email by members who read messages via email ("what? I posted that email, didn't you get it?" "what are you talking about? it's not showing up here" "well, it shows up in my email, so what's going wrong?" "I read from the web and I can't see it" "well, read your email!" "I don't use email to access the group, can you send it to me privately?" "ok, then what is YOUR email address? please post it" "I can't, the site will hide it" - trainwreck;

(3) I've seen no valid reason presented here NOT to do it - no real reason that makes showing email addresses in message bodies undesirable. I see near-zero likelihood of spammers coming in to "harvest" the needle-in-haystack email addresses that pop up in messages, whether those emails are for members or plumbers. I don't think it would be worth it to them. There are other, better ways to go about harvesting email addresses if someone is bent on doing that - joining the group and simply receiving email jumps immediately to mind (LOL); 

(4) if a group member posts another member's email address, and the member objects, I don't see much or any difference from if the member posts any other personal info that he or she objects to (their phone number or whatever). The objecting member can easily notify the moderator and the moderator can edit or delete the post, in either case (email or other offending personal info). Plus, this hardly ever happens in my experience anyway;

(4) as Brian says, it's the norm these days; and

(5) you'd get the most points for being better than Yahoo if you ditch this completely.

My second choice is E, and I give a thumbs-down to the rest.

I urge you to make a decision based on your best instincts, not on some sort of poll of this self-selecting little group. You wouldn't want a product designed by committee. I realize we are all users, your beta users, but I would urge you to consider future uers.

Yes, I would remove the View Source.



--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

I would pick option B, where non-member addresses are shown, except for one problem. If a member leaves a group, that person suddenly becomes a non-member, and all his/her email addresses that had been hidden will suddenly be revealed. To avoid that, you'd have to keep the addresses of all former members in perpetuity, or figure out how to flag an address in a message as "show" or "hide" when the message is posted and keep that information with the message. (One nice thing about a flag, though, is the poster or a moderator could toggle it on the web interface if the logic guesses wrong.)

C and D will only work if there's a call back to the server for the address. If you have the full address in the HTML source, even if it's not visible until the user clicks something, the spam-harvesting bots will get it.

I agree that non-members do not need View Source. In fact, most members don't need View Source. I would make it moderator/owner only.

JohnF


Duane
 

Based on what I see and use on other sites, choice E seems to be the closest because many of them always hide the email addresses. I would definitely turn it off for all of my groups. Here, I'm assuming that Send to Sender would still work.

Thanks,
Duane


 

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:27 pm, JohnF <johnf1686@...> wrote:
except for one problem

Right. Good thinking. Rabbit hole! :-) 
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

I vote for A) Showing all email addresses

2nd preference: E) Show all email addresses, with a per-group option to turn
this off

If the addresses must be hidden, then D) I could hide all email addresses
but clicking them is like clicking a mailto: link, it'll bring up your
email client.



> For non-members/public, I'm thinking of one change: removing the View
> Source links to messages, because it's more difficult to mask email
> addresses there and the public doesn't need View Source anyways.

I agree, that's a good idea


--
Jim
Poston@...

<<             We live so far out in the sticks, our zip is EIEIO.            
 >>
  


Ro
 

I vote for E


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:29:15 -0700
Subject: [beta] Email address hide-n-seek
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi All,

New thread, same topic. Here are some possibilities. These would only apply when a member is viewing archives, not the public:

A) Showing all email addresses.
B) Shal's suggestion of not hiding non-member email addresses.
C) Hiding all email addresses but making them clickable, whereas a window pops up with the full email address.
D) I could hide all email addresses but clicking them is like clicking a mailto: link, it'll bring up your email client.
E) Show all email addresses, with a per-group option to turn this off.

(C and D are proposed because that would make things marginally more difficult for potential harvesters.)

Personally I'm ok with showing all email addresses, because it's only for members, who get the email addresses in email messages anyways and by definition these won't show up in Google searches. But I won't do that unless it's agreed upon by the group. I understand that this is a sensitive topic.

For non-members/public, I'm thinking of one change: removing the View Source links to messages, because it's more difficult to mask email addresses there and the public doesn't need View Source anyways.

Thoughts?
Mark


 

Mark,

New thread, same topic. Here are some possibilities. These would only
apply when a member is viewing archives, not the public:
If a group has non-restricted membership there's not as strong a distinction between the public and a member as a moderator might believe. But it is sufficient to avoid exposure through honest web search engines.

D) I could hide all email addresses but clicking them is like clicking a
mailto: link, it'll bring up your email client.
This, on the assumption that one can copy it (rather than open it) with a right click. But I'm not sure how that goes on mobile. It might need to be a pop-up menu to let you choose whether to open or copy, but that would eliminate the one-click convenience of a pure mailto:

(C and D are proposed because that would make things marginally more
difficult for potential harvesters.)
Even for these I'd want an option to turn them off. In a group with open membership I'd be concerned that "marginally" won't prove adequate.

Or maybe:

F) Show email addresses that appear in the OPs text, but hide email addresses that appear in quoted parts of the body. This would be aimed primarily of handling the common case of "On [date/time], [email address] wrote:" in reply messages, with the goal of showing only deliberately posted addresses.

And like (E), with an option to turn it off (hide them all).

Personally I'm ok with showing all email addresses, because it's only
for members, who get the email addresses in email messages anyways ...
The error there is static thinking. Coming into a group you don't have a collection of prior messages by email. So if your intent is to harvest the group members' addresses your only source is the messages archive (or the Members list, if enabled for members).

For non-members/public, I'm thinking of one change: removing the View
Source links to messages, because it's more difficult to mask email
addresses there and the public doesn't need View Source anyways.
I'm sure I'll find a time when that vexes me, but on the whole that's probably the right answer.

Shal


vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

 I also vote  E

Vickie

 









From: Ro <recarlton@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Email address hide-n-seek

I vote for E


Ro

with Sally and Silk waiting at their feed dishes, and Handy, Feliz &  Police Kitty patrolling in the Great Beyond.





Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 15:29:15 -0700
Subject: [beta] Email address hide-n-seek
From: markf@corp.groups.io
To: beta@groups.io

Hi All,

New thread, same topic. Here are some possibilities. These would only apply when a member is viewing archives, not the public:

A) Showing all email addresses.
B) Shal's suggestion of not hiding non-member email addresses.
C) Hiding all email addresses but making them clickable, whereas a window pops up with the full email address.
D) I could hide all email addresses but clicking them is like clicking a mailto: link, it'll bring up your email client.
E) Show all email addresses, with a per-group option to turn this off.

(C and D are proposed because that would make things marginally more difficult for potential harvesters.)

Personally I'm ok with showing all email addresses, because it's only for members, who get the email addresses in email messages anyways and by definition these won't show up in Google searches. But I won't do that unless it's agreed upon by the group. I understand that this is a sensitive topic.

For non-members/public, I'm thinking of one change: removing the View Source links to messages, because it's more difficult to mask email addresses there and the public doesn't need View Source anyways.

Thoughts?
Mark



Maria
 
Edited

I wanted to say that I share Shal's concern about email addresses being shown in quoted replies on the web version over and over again. (F)

I've had many members who are just more comfortable with the idea of their participation displaying via web as a profile name/alias (not email address) - even though they understand their email is available once members click a reply to sender button on email versions - It's only partially viewable on the web reply version in Y!. This is  just a comfort level and I'm not going to get in to debates with them about privacy on the internets :)

For us the only benefit of this change would be to make it easier to provide contact info for a 3rd parties ( usually businesses/providers) who we are recommending to other members in the body of a post.

Maria 



vickie <vickie_00@...>
 

Brian, 

>>>I'm all for removing the "View Source" link for non-members on the web interface. 
I agree, however  you can view source from any incoming E-mail  group message.
As it stands now if a  NEW member  say is  NUM1  waiting to be approved they  can view  group messages from the web.
I don't remember in my test if they are receiving group messages while  they are in status NUM1.  Shal?




Vickie

 









From: Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
To: beta@groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Email address hide-n-seek

P.S.  I'm all for removing the "View Source" link for non-members on the web interface.   It's a seldom needed feature to begin with, even for members, but I can't conceive of any reason for the public to have this sort of access.



 

Unapproved members can't read messages anywhere. Not in emails and not on the web.
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Maria wrote, in part:  "I've had many members who are just more comfortable with the idea of their participation displaying via web as a profile name/alias (not email address) "


Which is utterly, completely, totally irrelevant to the issue under discussion.  No one is proposing putting a sender's e-mail address in immediately visible form anywhere.

I am so tired of the twisting of this issue and request into pretzels that are not relevant and the weird belief that some people have that fig-leafing accomplishes anything.

The original request, and even what Mark started this thread about, is the display of e-mail addresses contained IN MESSAGE BODIES.  If you have a problem with an e-mail address being posted that you believe shouldn't be public then, please, have the moderator delete either it or the message.

This is not about message headers, nor view source (except as a side issue), it is about e-mail addresses that a given member might offer up in their own message text and its immediate accessibility.   All else being discussed is pure, unadulterated smokescreen.

Brian


 

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:58 am, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

No one is proposing putting a sender's e-mail address in immediately visible form anywhere.

I am so tired of the twisting of this issue

Me, too!  
--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 
Edited

It just occurred to me that there's actually a danger in masking email addresses in posts, namely: it gives members an illusion of safety that email addresses are masked by Groups.io when of course, they're actually not. They are all available in the email versions of posts. Members may not realize this. So not only is it ineffective and futile to mask email addresses on the site but not in emails, it's also a bit misleading and dangerous.

Given all the passion on both sides of this issue (despite my inability to understand why anyone is still arguing for hiding - or rather, pretending to hide email addresses in message bodies), and given that this decision must or will be made on the basis of a vote by members of this group (which I disagree with on general principle, no matter which way this goes) I would change my vote to "E".

EDIT: I would make sure the toggle says something like "Mask email addresses posted in a message body. Note: they will be masked only in the archives, not in emails."

--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


--
J

It's dumb to buy smart water.


Duane
 

This brings up the question of what does a person do if the owner/moderator is absent or doesn't want to take the time to do it? If they weren't there to begin with, they wouldn't need to be removed. Having to make an effort to have it show up (adding spaces, etc.) is much more likely to be intentional than simply replying via email where the client isn't configured to hide it as I have mine set to do.

Duane

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 06:58 am, Brian Vogel wrote:

If you have a
problem with an e-mail address being posted that you believe shouldn't be
public then, please, have the moderator delete either it or the message.