Date
1 - 16 of 16
Moderated EarthLink
|
Hi All, I've been trying to get Earthinlink to unblock us. They responded on Friday that they had unblocked us, but I’ve continued to receive reports over the weekend of blocking. I did hear from someone this evening that mail is flowing again. I unfortunately have no idea why they were(are?) blocking us. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
My personal problem with EarthLink is one of their users forwarded an EarthLink email address to my personal Gmail address. I contacted EarthLink support about this and they said that without the password of their user, they could do nothing. I set up a Gmail filter which automatically delets the emails.
The fact that a user can automatically forward emails to accounts they do not control tells volumes about EarthLink. The additional fact that their support follows the rule of "see no evil, hear no evil, do nothing," tells even more. My EarthLink issue has nothing to do with your issue, but I hope that you will have better luck with this issue than I did with mine. My suggestion is to document all of the EarthLink issues and pass them on to groups.io members with EarthLink email accounts . Bill |
|
|
|
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 05:10 AM, CW Bill Rouse wrote:
My suggestion is to document all of the EarthLink issues and pass them on to groups.io members with EarthLink email accountsFor a long time (at least a year or two), I've warned new members who apply with earthlink accounts to use another email address if they possibly can. I have no earthlink members left, but I do have a couple of mindspring members, having forgotten that it's the same thing. My bouncing mindspring members have now unbounced, but I have a charter.net member who is continuing to bounce. I don't think that was part of the earthlink list, so it's probably a different issue. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
I have a charter.net person too and I can not seem to get her to understand that she has to complain to Charter. I am gathering that Spectrum and Charter are related some how.
Wish I could get her to complain. She is now using a Gmail email, but I think it is still coming through Charter, not sure.
Termi
|
|
|
|
Chris Jones
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 04:36 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I've been trying to get Earthlink to unblock us.Mark; Having carried out some investigation within the group I moderate I have identified a possible gap in Groups.io functionality. If I sort members by Bouncing one of the Actions I have available is Send Bounce Probe. If, however, I sort by email provider (i.e. by putting something like earthlink in the Search box) I can find all those members with (in this case) earthlink email addresses. This returned 6 members, 3 of whom are Bouncing and 3 not. However, because I sorted by something other than Bouncing, Send Bounce Probe is not one of the available actions. Would it be possible to make Send Bounce Probe an available action based on whether or not the member concerned has a Bouncing flag, rather than the search route used to find them? When ISP - specific delivery problems are an issue having the ability to do this might prove very useful and less time - consuming. Chris. |
|
|
|
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 03:52 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
If I sort members by Bouncing one of the Actions I have available is Send Bounce Probe.What do you mean by "sort members by Bouncing"? Is that even possible? I know you can find the list of Bouncing members by using the Members dropdown. But that provides a list members all of whom are known to be bouncing, and where "send bounce probe" makes sense if you select any or all of them; whereas if you filter ( or "sort") the members list by any criterion, then you don't know that all the members returned are bouncing. So I'm not sure the "send bounce probe" should be available in that context, because you would want the system to preclude the possibility of the "send bounce probe" action on members who are not bouncing. Providing that action in that context provides the ability to do that and relies on you, the user, to be careful not to. So I don't know if this addition would be a good or a bad thing. I suppose you could get complicated about it, and make sure the system grays out the "Send Bounce Probe" action (if made available in this context) if you've selected any non-bouncing members. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 03:52 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
make Send Bounce Probe an available action based on whether or not the member concerned has a Bouncing flag,I do agree that being able to do this specifically would be handy, especially given these ISP-specific problems, but if you sort on email address and then filter on "earthlink," as in your example, you can get the scenario you mentioned, where you get, e.g,. 3 who are bouncing and 3 who aren't. So if you mean you want to make the action available on only the 3 who are bouncing, then I think that would be great. But I think to accomplish that you'd have to do something like have the system gray out the action if you select any non-bouncing members. It seems doable. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Chris Jones
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 01:32 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
whereas if you filter ( or "sort") the members list by any criterion, then you don't know that all the members returned are bouncing.Not all the members will return as bouncing, just those that are. Filter by email provider shows those that are bouncing as well as those that are not, which can be helpful in examining MSP - specific delivery problems. Such flags as are appended to any given member in the "full" list are carried over into any filtered list. Chris |
|
|
|
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 06:14 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
Such flags as are appended to any given member in the "full" list are carried over into any filtered list.Yes, totally, the flags are there. But you would still be able to select non-bouncing as well as bouncing members from your search results. So the "send bounce probe" action would have to be grayed out if you do that. It does seem doable, but it *would* have to be done to prevent users from sending bounce probes to non-bouncing members. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 06:16 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
grayed outOr "disabled," as Mark likes to call it - putting a little "x" on the button when you try to click on it, and making it clear that it is non-functional. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Bruce Bowman
Making the available Actions based on what checkboxes you check is doable, but more complicated, and perhaps not very intuitive. Please consider the situation where you accidentally select one person who *isn't* in a Bouncing condition and end up struggling to understand why "Send Bounce Probe" isn't showing up. I find the condition of the pull-down menu easier to wrap my head around than trying to sort through a litany of status badges.
Regards, Bruce |
|
|
|
Totally agree with Bruce. It was a nice thought, but the only solutions to make it really work seem too convoluted.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Sharon Villines
Can you fix the subject line. I keep opening these messages to see if there is anything new about Earthlink.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thanks, Sharon On Mar 6, 2019, at 10:05 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Jim Higgins
Received from Bruce Bowman at 3/6/2019 02:51 PM UTC:
Making the available Actions based on what checkboxes you check is doable, but more complicated, and perhaps not very intuitive. Please consider the situation where you accidentally select one person who *isn't* in a Bouncing condition and end up struggling to understand why "Send Bounce Probe" isn't showing up. I find the condition of the pull-down menu easier to wrap my head around than trying to sort through a litany of status badges. The suggestion to sort on "bouncing status" is pointless to begin with. If you view bouncing members - an already available option that works quite well - you have a list of everyone who is bouncing and the "Send bounce probe" option is available whether you select one or all from that list. Nothing new is needed. Jim H |
|
|
|
I can see a teensy-weensy point to it, but not enough to overcome the fact that the functionality basically already exists. Suppose you want to have a look at all your earthlink members (god help you if you have a lot of them..) and see how many of them are bouncing vs. how many are not. You would do the sort on email address from the overall members list that Chris suggests, just to get a feel for your statistic. But then, if you want to send bounce probes to all of them, you have to go into the Bouncing Members page to do it, rather than doing it right from your Members list.
If you go to Bouncing Members first, of course you do get all the bouncing members at one go, including the earthlink ones. But you don't see how many of the earthlink members are NOT bouncing. FWIW. It's not a whole lot of extra functionality. But it is a teeny weeny bit. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. |
|
|
|
Sharon Villines
SUBJECT LINE, SUBJECT LINE, SUBJECT LINE. PLEASE.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 6, 2019, at 9:38 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote: |
|
|