moderated AOL problem


 

I'm glad Linda said it: this emperor has no clothes. There is just no real problem here. None of the few members who have been removed have complained or asked for an explanation: they click on the resub link or they don't. In some cases, as I've said, I resub them myself if I know they're active members. The incidents are very few and far between.

I don't know exactly how this solution without a problem got started, but I, too, would urge no change.
--
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


Linda
 

Hi Folks,

Occasionally I see a member leave and rejoin. With 2400 members, the
current system seems to be working perfectly. I've never had to explain
what is going on - they get it. Some of them don't learn the first time,
but they "lather, rinse, repeat" all on their own, as it should be. I'm not
looking for additional administrative work. Please don't change a thing.

And for the record, I love the cats!

Linda


 

Ok, but I thought the list was for purposes of users to check whether or not they might be affected, in which case you’d want to explicitly include those.


On May 12, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:

Actually, I think all of ATT email and Verizon are handled at and by Yahoo.
Doesn't that make you feel wonderful?  I get several kickbacks a week from att.net, pacbell.net, etc both to our hosted domain email and groups.io
--

Bob Bellizzi

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


--
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
 

Actually, I think all of ATT email and Verizon are handled at and by Yahoo.
Doesn't that make you feel wonderful?  I get several kickbacks a week from att.net, pacbell.net, etc both to our hosted domain email and groups.io
--

Bob Bellizzi

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


 

BTW, someone posted here a link to the GMF wiki page explaining FBL. You might want to add Verizon, Bellsouth and Netscape to the list.
--
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


 

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 07:05 am, Shal Farley wrote:
I posit that leaving the subscription intact will reduce the intensity of those reactions and will reduce the sense of urgency in "fixing" the problem. Both of those can go a long way to improving member comprehension and willingness to learn.
Shal,

I think that's a real stretch but it's a remarkable try. I see why your calling is sales. ;)
 
--
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,

One of the biggest problems is that in many cases, the intended
recipient is not informed of the groups.io message being intercepted
and never delivered to them in any form.
I'm uncertain what scenario you are considering, but it isn't this one.

This scenario starts with messages that are delivered to the member, albeit possibly to Spam or some folder other than their Inbox.

In that case, there is no communication possible between groups.io and
the intended recipient to instruct the recipient, period, so all
schemes depending on communication are not possible.
That's generally not the behavior of major email services' spam filters. As long as the message source does not appear on a blacklist, and/or hasn't established a strongly negative reputation, the filter will tend to pick and choose messages to divert based on the message content.

In particular off-list notifications (such as the "resume" notice, or a even a member notice from the group's mods via the site) are not likely to be downrated just because group message traffic was.

So showing them how to set up any new provider account doesn't seem an
option.
Well, it certainly is an "impertinent" response, IMO.

I would only suggest it to Yahoo Mail users who might actually prefer another provider, but came over from a Yahoo Group having believed that it was necessary or better to use Yahoo Mail with that service.

Shal


 

J,

But what I'm still not understanding is how the proposed method ... is
any different or better than the current method ... IN TERMS OF the
situation repeating itself ad infinitum with the particular member.
It has been noted that the unsubscription in the current mechanism is often associated with various strong emotional responses from the member: panic, confusion, anger, a sense of betrayal. None of that is conducive to resolving a complex issue.

I posit that leaving the subscription intact will reduce the intensity of those reactions and will reduce the sense of urgency in "fixing" the problem. Both of those can go a long way to improving member comprehension and willingness to learn.

Shal


 

J,

Is the current proposition different in that their configuration would
somehow change to prevent future emails from going into spam?
I don't think there's anything that can be done at the Groups.io end to have that effect. And I don't think the "Spam Report Hold" proposal is significantly different than Unsubscribed For Spam in terms of how it affects the delivery of future emails.

Rather, I see its fundamental advantage as allowing the member continued access via web.

This aspect may have some additional benefits:

1) Activist moderators need not be in a Premium group to aide the affected members (no need for Direct Add). They could contact the member off-list and/or initiate additional "spam probes" (akin to bounce probes) to help the member resume email communication.

2) Members who prefer to access the group via the web need not be worried or panicked to straighten out the issue, they can take their time. They can be encouraged to reduce or eliminate future incidents by way of switching to Special Notices or No Email in the future.

Balanced against these potential benefits is the very real complexity cost of implementing the mechanism, both for Mark as developer and for us as mods and owners to learn and teach about it (but the latter may be no worse than what we face already with the Unsubscribe mechanism).

Shal


 

Ronaldo,

What's keeping those later messages from getting stuck in the same
spamfilter?
Nothing by mechanism.

The intent is that the service interruption will either:

1) Bring the member's attention to the issue, and encourage him/her to take whatever corrective action is necessary to keep group messages out of their Spam folder, to avoid a repeat of the inconvenience.

or

2) Stop wasting the sender's and receiver's electrons sending messages to a user who has lost interest in the group's content.

From what I've read, the email service providers by and large believe that (2) is the majority case, and that relatively few of their affected users fall into category (1). Absent clairvoyance I can't say that they're wrong -- we moderators only ever hear from users in category (1), so our perception may be biased.

Shal


 

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 03:17 pm, Toby Kraft wrote:
unsubscribing the member (which to many seems rather draconian). 
But again, my comparison was not with respect to the user experience. I understand that the proposed method is better in terms of user experience. My question is, and has always been: how does the proposed method solve the (perceived) problem? In other words, how is the proposed method any better than sub/unsub in terms of ensuring that the spam issue will not happen again with respect to a particular user? In the unsub/sub situation, the user simply has to click on a link to resubscribe. They are warned about, but not forced to take any action with respect to, their spam filter. The proposed method seems similar in that regard - again, unless I am missing something.

You mention you direct-add unsubscribed members, but the free plan groups do not have direct-add 
I mentioned that only to show that unsub/sub has not accomplished anything, at least in the case of my group. It has been no more disastrous to simply add the member back in than to make them jump the hoop of clicking on a link to resub. The resub link (just like the proposed method) to me is like "wink, wink, see, you had to do something." Nobody has ever been unsubbed twice for marking a message as spam. That was my sole point here. I am fully aware that basic-level groups can't direct-add members

--
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, 
I appreciate your comments and they are always insightful...

Re: (paraphrased) how is the proposed method ("spam block") any different or better than the current method ("unsubscribe")?
What's proposed, IMHO, is a more graceful way of responding to the spam report than unsubscribing the member (which to many seems rather draconian).  Since it would be enabled on a per-group basis, group owner/mods would never see it unless it was enabled.

You mention you direct-add unsubscribed members, but the free plan groups do not have direct-add so it's more problematic for them to get the member resubscribed.

Thanks
Toby


 

And to emphasize my point: unsub/resub seems like essentially a no-op anyway. In GMF (I’m no longer there) I heard arguments that it’s useful because it forces the member to do something affirmative to stay in the group. But I disagree that it creates a meaningful barrier. The whole process currently, and as proposed, strikes me as a ridiculous charade. I direct-add my unsubbed members back in to save them the confusion and the headache. And despite that, the same member has never been slammed twice in a row. It seems almost random.


On May 10, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Bob Bellizzi <cdfexec@...> wrote:

I think that Catlady hit the nail on the thumb, none of our  schemes is any better than the simple unsubscribe.

I tried to stop looking at this thread because it's a really tough knot to open for so many reasons.

One of the biggest problems is that in many cases, the intended recipient is not informed of the groups.io message being intercepted and never delivered to them in any form.  Input from groups.io just stops because it's turned back at the email supplier.
In that case, there is no communication possible between groups.io and the intended recipient to instruct the recipient, period, so all schemes depending on communication are not possible.

Secondly, people do not like change and in many cases are fiercely loyal to their email provider often just because they don't want to have to leave a familiar environment or don't wish to lose the "freebees" provided by the email provider for the express purpose of keeping them as clients.

So showing them how to set up any new provider account doesn't seem an option.

Finally, I'm going to ignore this thread unless Mark introduces a change to the current process of handling spam notices.
--

Bob Bellizzi

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


--
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
 

I think that Catlady hit the nail on the thumb, none of our  schemes is any better than the simple unsubscribe.

I tried to stop looking at this thread because it's a really tough knot to open for so many reasons.

One of the biggest problems is that in many cases, the intended recipient is not informed of the groups.io message being intercepted and never delivered to them in any form.  Input from groups.io just stops because it's turned back at the email supplier.
In that case, there is no communication possible between groups.io and the intended recipient to instruct the recipient, period, so all schemes depending on communication are not possible.

Secondly, people do not like change and in many cases are fiercely loyal to their email provider often just because they don't want to have to leave a familiar environment or don't wish to lose the "freebees" provided by the email provider for the express purpose of keeping them as clients.

So showing them how to set up any new provider account doesn't seem an option.

Finally, I'm going to ignore this thread unless Mark introduces a change to the current process of handling spam notices.
--

Bob Bellizzi

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


Bruce Wilson
 

Would it not be more simple to show the AOL user how to set up a gmail account to use with groups.io and avoid all of the AOL hassles?

Bruce Wilson
Barrie, Ontario, Canada

On 5/10/2018 09:36, ro-esp wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 09:02 pm, Randy Thomson wrote:

So the answer to the question

what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before


ro-esp
 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 09:15 am, Tom Vail wrote:

"Spam Report Hold" is better than “Suspended.”
maybe, but it's not good enough. People who have no idea what we are talking about here would start googleing "spam report hold" - and maybe in vain..

If we have something like this, it would have to tell people "check your spambox and mark your group's messages as not-spam. After doing so, reactivate your subscription *here* "

groetjes, Ronaldo


ro-esp
 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 09:02 pm, Randy Thomson wrote:

So the answer to the question

what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before



is that, assuming the mail server takes expected action and the recipient
takes the proper action to designate messages from xyzzy@groups.io as safe
email, future messages will no longer be treated as spam and will be delivered
appropriately.
So "the subscriber unflagging messages", because using a filterrule would bypass the spamfilter instead of teaching it anything.

Seems to me things could go very wrong if a group were used for spam...

groetjes, Ronaldo




Since the behavior of neither the email server nor (especially) the recipient
is fully predictable, the process cannot be totally reliable, but (fingers
crossed) may work most of the time.



I think a lot of the discussion has gone into how to make the process
foolproof. IMO, there are too many permutations of fool for this to be
accomplished. Either unsubscribing or setting to no mail, and simultaneously
sending a notice with clear instructions is all we can do. My preference would
be the latter, but I’m OK with either approach.



Randy T



From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 9:15 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] AOL problem



On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 05:59 pm, ro-esp wrote:

What's keeping those later messages from getting stuck in the same spamfilter?

This is related to my question (two posts back) about the difference between
this method and the current method, wherein the user gets an email with a
resubscribe link. Currently, after someone resubscribes, what's to then
prevent the same thing from happening as before, i.e., future messages going
into their spam? Is the current proposition different in that their
configuration would somehow change to prevent future emails from going into
spam?

--
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




 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 09:02 pm, Randy Thomson wrote:
how to make the process foolproof. IMO, there are too many permutations of fool for this to be accomplished
Haha :) 

But what I'm still not understanding is how the proposed method (set member to "spam block," send email with link to unblock) is any different or better than the current method (unsubscribe member, send email with unsubscribe link) IN TERMS OF the situation repeating itself ad infinitum with the particular member. I understand that it's better in terms of the user experience, since the member still has access to the group contents and is not toally unsubscribed. But there was a concern expressed here that just undoing the unsubscribe doesn't prevent the problem from happening again. How is the proposed method superior in that regard?


 
--
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


Randy Thomson
 

Oops. I meant to redact the original message, and groups.io removed a lot of formatting, so the message below is sort of confusing. I’m turning it into unformatted text and manually formatting.
------------------------------

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of Randy Thomson via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 11:01 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] AOL problem

J_Catlady,

Assuming it works as expected (or maybe not),
1. Email is sent by mailto:xyzzy@groups.io (aka groups.io/xyzzy).
2. Mail is received at destination email server.
3. Mail is examined by server and determined to be spam.
4. Mail server
a. Either marks message as spam or does not mark as spam
And
b. Either delivers it to the Inbox or to a Spam folder, or, heaven forbid, just doesn’t deliver it, in which case you’re *OL.
c. Then either
i. Sends spam report to groups.io, or
ii. Does not send spam report to groups.io.
5. Assuming 4.c.i., Groups.io receives spam report
a. Groups.io automatically unsubscribes member
b. Groups.io sends notice of unsubscription with resubscribe link to member.
6. If mail goes to
a. inbox, then member receives messages and takes appropriate resubscribe action.
b. Spam folder
i. Member notices “I haven’t received any messages from xyzzy lately, I wonder what happened.”
ii. Member thinks “I wonder if it’s being treated as spam.” And checks spam folder.
iii. Wallah! There it is.
7. Member designates mail as not spam, or better yet designates sending domain as safe, and moves mail to inbox.
8. Member re-subscribes using link in second email message.

All is well, and future emails are received.

There are multiple permutations, additions, deletions and variations on the above depending upon
1. Mail server behavior
2. Mail recipient behavior

So the answer to the question

what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before

is that, assuming the mail server takes expected action and the recipient takes the proper action to designate messages from mailto:xyzzy@groups.io as safe email, future messages will no longer be treated as spam and will be delivered appropriately.

Since the behavior of neither the email server nor (especially) the recipient is fully predictable, the process cannot be totally reliable, but (fingers crossed) may work most of the time.

I think a lot of the discussion has gone into how to make the process foolproof. IMO, there are too many permutations of fool for this to be accomplished. Either unsubscribing or setting to no mail, and simultaneously sending a notice with clear instructions is all we can do. My preference would be the latter, but I’m OK with either approach.

Randy T


Randy Thomson
 

J_Catlady,

 

Assuming it works as expected (or maybe not),

1.       Email is sent by xyzzy@groups.io (aka groups.io/xyzzy).

2.       Mail is received at destination email server.

3.       Mail is examined by server and determined to be spam.

4.       Mail server

a.       Either marks message as spam or does not mark as spam

And

b.       Either delivers it to the Inbox or to a Spam folder, or, heaven forbid, just doesn’t deliver it, in which case you’re *OL.

c.       Then either

                                                               i.      Sends spam report to groups.io, or

                                                             ii.      Does not send spam report to groups.io.

5.       Assuming 4.c.i., Groups.io receives spam report

a.       Groups.io automatically unsubscribes member

b.       Groups.io sends notice of unsubscription with resubscribe link to member.

6.       If mail goes to inbox, then member receives messages and takes appropriate resubscribe action.

7.       If mail goes to Spam folder, member notices “I haven’t received any messages from xyzzy lately, I wonder what happened.”

8.       Member thinks “I wonder if it’s being treated as spam.” And checks spam folder.

9.       Wallah! There it is.

10.   Member designates mail as not spam, or better yet designates sending domain as safe, and moves mail to inbox.

11.   Member re-subscribes using link in second email message.

12.   All is well, and future emails are received.

 

There are multiple permutations, additions, deletions and variations on the above depending upon

a.       Mail server behavior

b.       Mail recipient behavior

 

So the answer to the question

 

what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before

 

is that, assuming the mail server takes expected action and the recipient takes the proper action to designate messages from xyzzy@groups.io as safe email, future messages will no longer be treated as spam and will be delivered appropriately.

 

Since the behavior of neither the email server nor (especially) the recipient is fully predictable, the process cannot be totally reliable, but (fingers crossed) may work most of the time.

 

I think a lot of the discussion has gone into how to make the process foolproof. IMO, there are too many permutations of fool for this to be accomplished. Either unsubscribing or setting to no mail, and simultaneously sending a notice with clear instructions is all we can do. My preference would be the latter, but I’m OK with either approach.

 

Randy T

 

From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of J_Catlady
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 9:15 PM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] AOL problem

 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 05:59 pm, ro-esp wrote:

What's keeping those later messages from getting stuck in the same spamfilter?

This is related to my question (two posts back) about the difference between this method and the current method, wherein the user gets an email with a resubscribe link. Currently, after someone resubscribes, what's to then prevent the same thing from happening as before, i.e., future messages going into their spam? Is the current proposition different in that their configuration would somehow change to prevent future emails from going into spam?
 
--
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