Topics

moderated Footer variations in individual emails


 

Mark,

... I suggest changing your group to Force HTML Emails, if you like
the HTML footers, or PlainTextOnly if you want the plain text footers.
Maybe "Force HTML Emails" should be a subscription option rather than a group option. Or in addition to.

That way members who seem incapable (for whatever reason) of "going private" by simply copying the original From address into the To address of their reply can be told to check that box in their subscription. Without inflicting the rest of the group members with more HTML.

(I DO NOT suggest the same for Plain Text Only, as that has consequences for how messages appear on the group's Messages pages. Also some group moderators prefer it as an "anti-exploit" feature, over and above any "cleaning" of HTML message bodies that Groups.io does.)

Shal


 

All,

I'm putting this topic on moderation; nothing new is coming from the discussion.

Like I said, there are technical limitations to what I can put in a plain text footer. You can certainly reply to sender from the 'View/Reply Online' link. It just takes an extra click of the Private button when replying.

Mark

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:42 AM Drew <pubx1@...> wrote:
Yes, there is no Reply-to-Sender footer link on your post. If I want to
reply to you privately I can manually copy & paste your address in the
email headers. Or go through the Group page, as you say.

Not a big deal to me personally. It's just that we can't realistically
tell subscribers to "take it off list" and expect them to comply.

Drew


On 09/20/18 14:18, Frances wrote:
> So, Drew, the footers for your post don’t have a Reply to Sender link.
>
> No way through email off-list, only through the Group homepage. (Reply, then change reply to Private.)
>
> At least to your post on Beta.
>
> Frances
>
>> On Sep 20 18, at 1:30 PM, Drew <pubx1@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, there is good reason to be able to take a group discussion "off list". Unfortunately, the email mechanism to do so easily (the List-Post header) caused a lot of confusion when it was tried in Groups.io for reasons I don't remember. So, taking a discussion off list means having to manually copy &  paste the From field to the To field, etc.
>>
>> I'm not keen on having additional footer links however.
>>
>> Drew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>






Drew
 

Yes, there is no Reply-to-Sender footer link on your post. If I want to reply to you privately I can manually copy & paste your address in the email headers. Or go through the Group page, as you say.

Not a big deal to me personally. It's just that we can't realistically tell subscribers to "take it off list" and expect them to comply.

Drew

On 09/20/18 14:18, Frances wrote:
So, Drew, the footers for your post don’t have a Reply to Sender link.
No way through email off-list, only through the Group homepage. (Reply, then change reply to Private.)
At least to your post on Beta.
Frances

On Sep 20 18, at 1:30 PM, Drew <pubx1@af2z.net> wrote:

Yes, there is good reason to be able to take a group discussion "off list". Unfortunately, the email mechanism to do so easily (the List-Post header) caused a lot of confusion when it was tried in Groups.io for reasons I don't remember. So, taking a discussion off list means having to manually copy & paste the From field to the To field, etc.

I'm not keen on having additional footer links however.

Drew




Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Michael Pavan wrote:
I believe Groups.io will be useful to more people/groups and function best, if it can be set to meet all needs rather than pared down to the desires of a few.
I should be free to express my opinions just as much as you are.

That being said, I am not trying to say what a number of people wish to say I am.

I would never term a "one-way group"  a group, but a list, or an "Announcement Cluster."  But that's neither here nor there.

When I say group/forum, I mean what was traditionally meant, a collection of people in multi-way communication.  Hence, my original comments stand in that context.

If folks need and want one-way communication from a central point out to a collection of people managed by a membership roster, more power to them.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Frances
 

So, Drew, the footers for your post don’t have a Reply to Sender link.

No way through email off-list, only through the Group homepage. (Reply, then change reply to Private.)

At least to your post on Beta.

Frances

On Sep 20 18, at 1:30 PM, Drew <pubx1@af2z.net> wrote:

Yes, there is good reason to be able to take a group discussion "off list". Unfortunately, the email mechanism to do so easily (the List-Post header) caused a lot of confusion when it was tried in Groups.io for reasons I don't remember. So, taking a discussion off list means having to manually copy & paste the From field to the To field, etc.

I'm not keen on having additional footer links however.

Drew




Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/20/2018 03:57 PM UTC:

I repeat, at the Group Level. I understand individuals might want to reply to sender. What triggered me to start all this in the first place is the fact that when one receives a message in plain text format there is no convenient way to actually do just that. But why you would ever want every response that anyone makes to go back only to the sender, which is what I take setting "Reply to Sender" at the Group Level, to mean is what I cannot fathom ever doing.

You don't need to fathom it. There's a valid need for "Reply to Group" groups and the solution to your dislike of them is to not join them or not click the "Reply to Sender" option if offered.

I don't like cats anywhere near me (apologies to J_Catlady). The solution to that phobia that originates from a bad childhood experience is to stay away from cats, not to suggest that no one else should have a cat.

Just saying.

Jim H


Duane
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:29 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
it would be insane for a group owner to make the default behavior when someone replies to a message in e-mail "Reply to Sender" as the default for the whole group
This is the very thing that Freegle or Freecycle groups use since any negotiations are done off-group.

Duane


Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/20/2018 03:08 PM UTC:

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
All 4 options should be fully functional and operate in the same manner.

I would think whichever one of these was set by the Group Owner, that one is the default behavior when someone replies via e-mail.I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender," or "Reply to Moderators," options at the Group Level would have if a group is to function as a group.

Some groups aren't set up to function as a "group" - meaning as a forum for roundtable discussion. They may primarily be set up to distribute announcements... in which case it might be better to direct queries only to the sender because he's the only one who can answer them.

Jim H


Drew
 

Yes, there is good reason to be able to take a group discussion "off list". Unfortunately, the email mechanism to do so easily (the List-Post header) caused a lot of confusion when it was tried in Groups.io for reasons I don't remember. So, taking a discussion off list means having to manually copy & paste the From field to the To field, etc.

I'm not keen on having additional footer links however.

Drew

On 09/20/18 11:20, Dave Sergeant wrote:
Actual Brian there is one very important case why a poster should reply
to the sender, something which came up just yesterday on one of my
groups. Someone was offering a television spare part to another member
and told him to let him have his postal address - it could also have
required sending him payment information. This is the very sort of
information that most of us would not want to be made public in the
group (and stored in the archive for good measure). Some replies are
best kept off list.
And for good measure the member ignored my warning and sent it the
group anyway...
Dave
On 20 Sep 2018 at 8:08, Brian Vogel wrote:

I would think whichever one of these was set by the Group Owner, that
one is the default behavior when someone replies via e-mail.

I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender," or "Reply to
Moderators," options  at the Group Level would have if a group is to
function as a group.  The "Reply to Sender" as default makes the group
roundabout e-mail, and the "Reply to Moderators," is some sort of weird
"everyone's moderated" status, but I don't even know what the moderators
would do with a message not really intended "for them" that comes to
them.  As a moderator I can't post as if I were someone else, nor would
I want to.
http://davesergeant.com


Dave Sergeant
 

I think what you are finding is the difference between posts SENT in
plain text as against html. All my email is sent plain text and comes
through without an html section.

Having different arrangements for footers in plain text and html is not
ideal by any stretch. I also have the situation where I receive an html
post and there is no footer in the plain text part (the section I by
default choose to read) and I have to switch to the html part to see
them. Similarly if there is an attachment sent as a link that often
only appears in the html section if one is present. It leads to
confusion if I try and tell people where to look for the 'reply to
sender' link and then they come back and say they can't see it because
they are receiving plain text.

Dave

On 20 Sep 2018 at 9:58, Frances wrote:


I won't weigh in the pros and cons but I wanted to say that I notice the
differences in your footers, posters! 

I "followed" this thread.
In my email (Apple Mail on my laptop AND on my iPhone) I see in the
footers:

Michael P - no link to reply to sender of the message.
Brian V - a link to reply to sender
Dave S - no link to reply to sender
Mark Fletcher - a link to reply to sender
Lena - no link to reply to sender
Bob B - a link to reply to sender (thread starter)
Steve B - a link to reply to sender

http://davesergeant.com


Barbara Byers
 

Another vote NOT to get rid of plain text, I much prefer it.

Barb

 


On 2018-09-20 01:24 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:

<snipped>
Not in my experience. HTML email - meaning email containing formatting deliberately applied by the sender - is NOT the norm. The norm is for most senders to type plain text - no deliberately applied formatting or decoration - and then the email programs wrap a bunch of totally pointless and useless HTML tags around that plain text. Strip away all of those HTML tags from most email sent by individuals (and replace HTML line breaks with CR/LF) and the appearance of most email doesn't change one iota. The only result of selecting to send HTML email in most cases is to inflate the size of the email by a significant percentage that can easily exceed 250%. In short, we do not need to - and should not - get rid of the plain text option.

Jim H





Jim Higgins
 

Received from Brian Vogel at 9/20/2018 02:06 PM UTC:

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I could do some work to emulate reply to sender/reply to group functionality through the website for plain text emails

I see no point in doing any extra work for "Reply to Group" as that's the default behavior when one replies to any message (not private, mind you) one receives from Groups.io.

Not so. The group owner can set the group so the default action for a reply is to send the reply to the sender of the message being replied to. Some repliers who reply from home may configure their email clients to "Reply to All" and those clients are then prone to reply to the group AND to the original sender. And some email clients default to "Reply to All" - which is a horrible default IMO. And then on Groups.io we have either recent changes in this area... or pending requests for changes... that may lead some to feel a real need to look carefully at where the reply is really addressed to before hitting the SEND button... yet the message editor on Groups.io doesn't give a clue as to where replies made online are going... not even fig leafed addresses. IMNSHO, that needs to be "fixed" before any more changes are made in this area. Email senders/repliers should see (figleafing OK) where they're sending.


It would be nice to have some way for plain text recipients to be able to do a direct reply to sender without having to post a, "Can you send me your e-mail address so I can contact you off-list?," message, which happens with some frequency.

That's easy. Stop reading mail on the Groups.io site and instead let Groups.io send it to your home email address. There you'll find that all email addresses are clearly visible... and your email client should reveal who replies are going to.


Personally, and I know this is not going to happen, I would simply eliminate the plain text e-mail option. It's a hold-over from an era long gone now. Even screen readers were long ago updated to be able to handle HTML e-mail messages once these became the norm rather than the exception.--

Not in my experience. HTML email - meaning email containing formatting deliberately applied by the sender - is NOT the norm. The norm is for most senders to type plain text - no deliberately applied formatting or decoration - and then the email programs wrap a bunch of totally pointless and useless HTML tags around that plain text. Strip away all of those HTML tags from most email sent by individuals (and replace HTML line breaks with CR/LF) and the appearance of most email doesn't change one iota. The only result of selecting to send HTML email in most cases is to inflate the size of the email by a significant percentage that can easily exceed 250%. In short, we do not need to - and should not - get rid of the plain text option.

Jim H


Steve Bass
 

Frances -- you've summed it up perfectly.

Are the footer options set in Admin*Settings? If so, I can't find it.

--Steve

________________________________
Hi

I won't weigh in the pros and cons but I wanted to say that I notice the differences in your footers, posters!

I "followed" this thread.
In my email (Apple Mail on my laptop AND on my iPhone) I see in the footers:

Michael P - no link to reply to sender of the message.
Brian V - a link to reply to sender
Dave S - no link to reply to sender
Mark Fletcher - a link to reply to sender
Lena - no link to reply to sender
Bob B - a link to reply to sender (thread starter)
Steve B - a link to reply to sender

Frances


Frances
 

Hi

I won't weigh in the pros and cons but I wanted to say that I notice the differences in your footers, posters! 

I "followed" this thread.
In my email (Apple Mail on my laptop AND on my iPhone) I see in the footers:

Michael P - no link to reply to sender of the message.
Brian V - a link to reply to sender
Dave S - no link to reply to sender
Mark Fletcher - a link to reply to sender
Lena - no link to reply to sender
Bob B - a link to reply to sender (thread starter)
Steve B - a link to reply to sender

Frances


Michael Pavan
 

All 4 options should be fully functional and operate in the same manner.
I would think whichever one of these was set by the Group Owner, that one is the default behavior when someone replies via e-mail.
Agreed

I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender,”
I don’t want any of my groups to be chat forums. My groups (for various amateur music groups) are intended to report on our gatherings, however other musically related posts are permitted. Most of my Subscribers/Members want to be informed, unfortunately human nature is such that there are always some that want to share their decision making thought processes, joke around, etc so I’ve added this to the footer:
| Replies are set to only go to the original sender, as RSVPs, 'me too's, 'I don't know's, and such rarely need to be sent to everyone.
Discussion about things musical is appropriate, however it not what happens the most - a functioning “Reply to Group” option in the footer (in all formats) is desirable for that.

or "Reply to Moderators,” options
One of my groups is for announcements of Dances to dancers - again not a chatter forum. It is an "Announcement Group” (Only moderators are allowed to post.) “Reply to Moderators" sounds like a useful option for it - maybe I’ll change it to that, although I have it set to “Reply to Sender” (as all my groups are), and in this case the Sender would always be a Moderator.

at the Group Level would have if a group is to function as a group.
There are many types of groups which function, but that does not mean they all have to in the same manner as they do not all have the same purpose.

The "Reply to Sender" as default makes the group roundabout e-mail,
I don’t know this term ‘roundabout e-mail’, I presume it means “non-chatter forum”...

and the "Reply to Moderators," is some sort of weird "everyone's moderated" status,
No, it means that replies go to Moderators, not everyone.
‘Everyone's moderated' status can be a good option for an 'Unrestricted Membership’ group or a group when discussion is ‘out of control’, and can be achieved by:
Admin: Settings: Spam Control: Moderated (All posts require approval before being sent to the group.): Update Group
OR
Admin: Members (check all): Actions: Use Group Moderation Setting: Override: moderated: Verify Action: Yes

but I don't even know what the moderators would do with a message not really intended "for them" that comes to them.
Either delete it and/or send a message to the poster that it appears their message was intended for someone specific and should have been directly sent to that person, not the group or in this case the group’s Moderators.

As a moderator I can't post as if I were someone else, nor would I want to.
Of course not, no one should be spoofing anyone else.

Heaven knows I do not ever want a "Reply to Moderators," or "Reply to Group and Sender," link as part of the standard link cluster in HTML messages. If anything, the "Reply to Moderators," link would be better identified, were such to be included, as "Report this message to the Moderators," but I wouldn't even necessarily want that.
What you do not want, may be exactly what others do want.
I believe Groups.io will be useful to more people/groups and function best, if it can be set to meet all needs rather than pared down to the desires of a few.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Steve Bass wrote:
I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender," or "Reply to Moderators," options at the Group Level would have if a group is to function as a group.
I repeat, at the Group Level.  I understand individuals might want to reply to sender.  What triggered me to start all this in the first place is the fact that when one receives a message in plain text format there is no convenient way to actually do just that.

But why you would ever want every response that anyone makes to go back only to the sender, which is what I take setting "Reply to Sender"  at the Group Levelto mean is what I cannot fathom ever doing.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Steve Bass
 

The "Reply to Sender" turns out to be valuable when someone in the group wants a response that the rest of the group might not have any interest in reading. (Granted they could Mute the reply, a terrific feature!)

One of my groups is a neighborhood list and often a member has something in the garage they want to give away. A "reply to Sender" link lets the 20 people respond privately ("I want it!!) and not to the list.

Agree about "Reply to Moderators" -- not terribly useful.

--Steve

_____________________

I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender," or "Reply to Moderators," options  at the Group Level would have if a group is to function as a group.


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Dave,

         I want to make clear that my response to Michael Pavan was not meant to imply that "Reply to Sender" isn't something one might want to do to an individual message, but that it would be insane for a group owner to make the default behavior when someone replies to a message in e-mail "Reply to Sender" as the default for the whole group.   What earthly purpose would that serve?   It would create a cascade of private conversations where there is, effectively, no group interaction.

         I can't imagine ever setting a "Reply method for the group," to default to either "Reply to Sender" or "Reply to Moderators," and, were I a group member, I'd kill the group owner if the choice "Reply to Sender and Group" were made, as that would create two messages back to the sender - one direct and one via the usual showing up on the Group.

         I absolutely agree with you that there are lots of times when someone might want to reply privately to the sender of a message that went out to a group at large.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore


Dave Sergeant
 

Actual Brian there is one very important case why a poster should reply
to the sender, something which came up just yesterday on one of my
groups. Someone was offering a television spare part to another member
and told him to let him have his postal address - it could also have
required sending him payment information. This is the very sort of
information that most of us would not want to be made public in the
group (and stored in the archive for good measure). Some replies are
best kept off list.

And for good measure the member ignored my warning and sent it the
group anyway...

Dave

On 20 Sep 2018 at 8:08, Brian Vogel wrote:

I would think whichever one of these was set by the Group Owner, that
one is the default behavior when someone replies via e-mail.

I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender," or "Reply to
Moderators," options  at the Group Level would have if a group is to
function as a group.  The "Reply to Sender" as default makes the group
roundabout e-mail, and the "Reply to Moderators," is some sort of weird
"everyone's moderated" status, but I don't even know what the moderators
would do with a message not really intended "for them" that comes to
them.  As a moderator I can't post as if I were someone else, nor would
I want to.

http://davesergeant.com


Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Michael Pavan wrote:
All 4 options should be fully functional and operate in the same manner.
I would think whichever one of these was set by the Group Owner, that one is the default behavior when someone replies via e-mail.

I can't imagine what earthly purpose the "Reply to Sender," or "Reply to Moderators," options  at the Group Level would have if a group is to function as a group.  The "Reply to Sender" as default makes the group roundabout e-mail, and the "Reply to Moderators," is some sort of weird "everyone's moderated" status, but I don't even know what the moderators would do with a message not really intended "for them" that comes to them.  As a moderator I can't post as if I were someone else, nor would I want to.

Heaven knows I do not ever want a "Reply to Moderators," or "Reply to Group and Sender," link as part of the standard link cluster in HTML messages.  If anything, the "Reply to Moderators," link would be better identified, were such to be included, as "Report this message to the Moderators," but I wouldn't even necessarily want that.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 
     Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

          ~ H.L. Mencken, AKA The Sage of Baltimore