Topics

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


 

Great idea.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

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.


 

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


 

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.


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



 

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.


 

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


 

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.


 

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.


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



 

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.


 

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.


 

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.


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


 

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.


Duane
 

It's not necessarily one or the other. If this implemented, and made optional as suggested, then fig leafing may be useful on some groups that choose to disable "send to me."

Duane


 

Duane,
Absolutely. Just pointing out that the complaint giving rise to 'we need the fig leaf' is easily waved away here by the same parties, claiming we could just put limitations in harvesting.

But yes, if both are made optional settings there's no problem.

My understanding is that Mark decided to make fig leafs optional. What happened to that?



Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2016, at 10:28 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

It's not necessarily one or the other. If this implemented, and made optional as suggested, then fig leafing may be useful on some groups that choose to disable "send to me."

Duane


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

It's dumb to buy smart water.


 

Maria,

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.
I don't follow your logic here. Are you saying that members are prohibited from electing to receive individual messages, or prohibited from keeping them? If not, they get to save the past post in an email folder. And they can reply to it from there.

That's no different from what I've proposed (if the feature is limited to the term of one's membership). The only difference is whether the member received the message when first posted or received it later.


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