moderated AOL problem


 

Sorry if this is old news. I confess I don't always keep up with the beta group emails. Some of my members are saying AOL marks the group messages as spam and then automatically unsubscribes them from my group.  (IDG@groups.io) Is there a workaround for this? I think it's happening with some others as well.

Thanks!
Rae
--------------------------------------
Rachel Rice, MA 
Professional Indexer and Editor






Duane
 

There's been a recent discussion about this on the GMF group. Yahoo is doing the same thing. Currently no workaround known, other than training users to check their spam folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/topic/messages_marked_as_spam/3045581

Duane


 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
There's been a recent discussion about this on the GMF group.  Yahoo is doing the same thing.  Currently no workaround known, other than training users to check their spam folder.
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/topic/messages_marked_as_spam/3045581


Yeah, I'm not happy with the current situation. Part of it is that everything is opaque to me. I think we get punished if we don't unsubscribe people that we get reports about. But I don't know for certain. And I don't know what, if any, thresholds there are for any of this. And it probably varies by company. Also, I don't know if someone marking a groups.io message as spam affects the spam filter for other people at the same service (my guess is yes, but ::shrug::). And it appears that some services do batch processing of spam issues, so we get a bunch of reports about someone at the same time, instead of perhaps when the messages were actually marked as spam.

I do know that if someone is subscribed to a group, and some portion of their emails are going to spam without them knowing, that's a bad experience. So there's definitely some advantage to having these feedback loops if we can help people understand that that is happening.

Thinking out loud here.... For a service to 'punish' us for ignoring spam reports, ...guessing... they'd have to see that we continue to send messages and they continue to get marked as spam. What if I came up with a system that looked like this:

- We get one or more spam reports about a user in a given day, we send an email to them saying, "hey, you're not getting all your messages because some are going into spam, please check your spam folder, mark any misidentified messages as not spam, and then reply to this message to acknowledge you got this. or, you're trying to get off the group, here's a link."
- For each day that we get at least one spam report from a user, we continue to send those messages, up to a total of N days.
- We log in the activity log when we send one of these messages, along with the count of messages sent to the person.
- If we get a reply from one of the messages, we reset the counter to 0.
- If we reach N days, we unsub the user.

I was writing as I was thinking, so I haven't thought this through completely. But how does this sound?

Thanks,
Mark


Duane
 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 03:33 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:


I was writing as I was thinking
The biggest concern I can see is that the "reminders" could very well also go into the spam folder. It seems that in some (most ?) cases, the user isn't marking anything as spam, their service is.

Duane


 

Mark,

- We get one or more spam reports about a user in a given day, we
send an email to them saying, "hey, you're not getting all your
messages because some are going into spam, please check your spam
folder, mark any misidentified messages as not spam, and then reply
to this message to acknowledge you got this. or, you're trying to get
off the group, here's a link."
I share Duane's concern that the notice could also be diverted to the member's spam folder. But apart from sending a duplicate notice from a domain other than groups.io (which itself may be problematic) I'm not sure what to suggest.

Maybe provide unsubscribe instructions rather than a link - "a short message luring one to click on a link" is a common description of a undesirable message (spam, phishing, attack site, ...).

One option may be to have a notification bar at the top of the web pages, and if such a member happens to log in to the site they could be notified there too.

- If we reach N days, we unsub the user.
How about switching the member's delivery to "No Email" (or "Special Notices Only") in each of their subscriptions? My consideration here is that even though you provide a resume subscription link in the notice when the person is finally unsubscribed, if the member is traveling on vacation or otherwise out of contact for a month or more that resume link may have expired or the message lost by the time the member returns to activity.

With the immediate goal (of halting message traffic to that address) satisfied, you can "age out" the inactive member on a much longer timescale, one that is commensurate with real-world issues.

Too, activist moderators (if given an easy way to list such members) could take whatever measures they have available to try and contact the inactive member.

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


Tom Vail
 

Mark,

I'm a new kid on the block here, but this seems like a potentially significant problem.  I like Shal's suggestion of just turning off their email.  Then you send them a message (maybe from a different account/email address) letting them know they have not been kicked out, but have a problem they need to address.  That message should also have some helpful hints on how to resolve it.  Putting a banner on the top of the page when they get online that also informs them of the same would be helpful.

I think that has 3 advantages.  
1) They can still interact with the group, and for some online may be enough.  Plus they can not say they they were "kicked out" of the group, which it would look like to the uninformed.

2) As Shal suggested, 3 day is not enough.  Our group is made up of people who travel and may be out of touch for weeks at a time.  When away, they may not have access to email, but could have webaccess.  So they would be informed and could deal with it when they have better access.  

3) And for the the not so tech savvy, it would give them time to wait for their grandkids to visit to reslove the problem.

Peace,
Tom


Chris Jones
 

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 05:33 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
How about switching the member's delivery to "No Email" (or "Special Notices Only") in each of their subscriptions?
This suggestion - made 18 months ago - is the subject of a current Poll on the GMF. Although the number of respondents is depressingly low, the vote is for exactly that. (FWIW the margin is 2.5:1)

However, some group owners do not allow "no emails" but I'm far from convinced that they should be allowed to hamstring the majority by retaining the current system.

In the meantime see the guidance in the GMF wiki here: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Removed-for-spam and point your members in its general direction; membership of the GMF is not required to read it. Another option is to copy it into your own wiki; it is there for the benefit of all, not just GMF members.

Chris


 

The option to disable ‘no email’ was an extremely hard-won battle and removing it would be unacceptable. Moderators need to be able to ensure that they can reach all members with a special notice. Please let’s not revisit this crucial feature.


On May 8, 2018, at 9:56 AM, Chris Jones via Groups.Io <chrisjones12@...> wrote:

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 05:33 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
How about switching the member's delivery to "No Email" (or "Special Notices Only") in each of their subscriptions?
This suggestion - made 18 months ago - is the subject of a current Poll on the GMF. Although the number of respondents is depressingly low, the vote is for exactly that. (FWIW the margin is 2.5:1)

However, some group owners do not allow "no emails" but I'm far from convinced that they should be allowed to hamstring the majority by retaining the current system.

In the meantime see the guidance in the GMF wiki here: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Removed-for-spam and point your members in its general direction; membership of the GMF is not required to read it. Another option is to copy it into your own wiki; it is there for the benefit of all, not just GMF members.

Chris

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


 

Chris,

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 05:33 pm, Shal Farley wrote:
How about switching the member's delivery to "No Email" (or "Special
Notices Only") in each of their subscriptions?
For the record, I've since decided that modifying the member's Email Delivery setting is the wrong approach.

Rather, I would have a new status, similar to "Bouncing" but operating on a per-group basis. I'm not sure what to call it ("Reported"?), but it would have the same effect as "Bouncing" - messages to that address cease until the member responds to a system notification.

Shal


Tom Vail
 

Shal,

That is a great idea!  How about "Email suspended" for a setting name?  Are you thinking the user could clear (un-check) it, or would that require the moderator?  I would vote for the user.  If set, could then a banner appear at the top of their page, sort of like the "Your account has not been approved" message giving them (or pointing to) info on how to resolve it?

Good thinking.

Peace,
Tom


Toby Kraft
 

Good idea, Shal!
I would suggest "Spam Report Hold" to clearly indicate why email is suspended.  Also, there needs to be a way to view the report that came from the mailbox provider.  As time goes on, I would hope that the ARF/MARF message format is extended to provide a field to communicate what actually happened which caused the report to be generated (user action, user filter, provider filter, etc).
Thanks
Toby


 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 06:13 am, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm not sure what to call it
slammed
 :-)
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Tom Vail
 

"Spam Report Hold" is better than “Suspended.”

 

Peace,

Tom


 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 09:15 am, Tom Vail wrote:
"Spam Report Hold" is better than “Suspended.”
Correct.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Bob Bellizzi
 

Allowing the user to simply reset the suspension is problematic.  The majority of members in groups, is unlikely to be experienced in the steps that might be needed to clear a spam flag their ISP set (e.g.Forwarding a copy of the message to the ISP at a specific email address, requesting whitelisting of groups.io.)
They are more likely to simply reset the flag and go on which can cause multiple suspension and eventually, blacklisting of groups.io.
IMHO a moderator should be involved (previously trained) to interact with the member to ensure proper action was taken prior to removing the suspension.
Letting just anyone mess with the possibility of blacklisting groups.io could be a plan for disaster.
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


Tom Vail
 

Good point Bob.  I know it makes it more complex, but maybe it could have a counter and the 3 time it happens then the moderator gets involved.  And when the message is sent to the blocked user, there should be very clear instructions on how and what to do to resolve the issue.

Peace,
Tom


Bob Bellizzi
 

Tom, 
The effect of a message being classed as spam by the receiving ISP is far more serious than a message rejected for no such account.
The initial labeling of a message as spam sets up a watch on the sending domain and each successive message from that domain will cause elevation of the sending domain nearer to a threshold where the receiving domain will place the sending domain on one or more "blacklists", each of which are independent and has its' own requirements for removal from the list.
Allowing the recipient to simply reset the suspension up to 3 times increases the likelyhood of groups.io being blacklisted that much more.
I doubt Mark would subscribe to that.
I know that I wouldn't.  I've been the domain owner/technical contact and had to hire someone to assist us to be removed from two blacklists.
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


Bob Bellizzi
 

Final point.
With over half million users and over 7000 groups (last count I remember)
we would have scads of people, majority untrained, attempting what many  professionals don't know how to do.

--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


 

I'm sure I'm missing the subtleties but right now all a removed user has to do to be reinstated is click on the resubscribe link. They can conceivably do that any number of times, causing repeated removals and going blithely on their way. Is the argument that that's different because they had to have received the email with the link?
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


Toby Kraft
 

J,
What's being proposed is a mechanism that does not unsubscribe the member when a feedback loop spam report message comes in.  The member remains subscribed but sending email to them is on hold ("Spam Report Hold" similar to Bouncing status) until (and this part is very fuzzy now) they resolve (most likely with mod/owner help) the situation that created the spam report in the 1st place.
Thanks
Toby