¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. GroupManagersForum
  2. Messages
Single Messages Topics Expanded Polls

Re: #moderation #messages #moderation #messages

Bill Sherman
 

Shal,

Thank you for taking the time to lay it out for us, though I am not really sure how "if the service?gains a reputation for delivering spam messages" could happen -- WE would be the ones allowing unmoderated emails to this list, and WE would be the ones to take action (such as adding in moderation or changing the address or whatever we needed to do) if we were ever to be hit with spam.? And, as I indicated, we haven't been spammed more than a couple of times in our 12 years of operation on prior systems.

"We" would never contribute to a gaining reputation for allowing spam delivery that we had deliberately?risked allowing...? I understand caution, but it seems like it is caution for fear of something that could not happen.? I sure wish we had discovered way, way in advance of moving all of our hundreds of families over to that there was no way to support this "experts list" kind of address.? It is an absolute showstopper for us, and one which will now cause us to uproot the organization (a Boy Scout unit with hundreds of addresses) and move off of to a different system.? Sigh.

If I could put in my $0.02 as a suggestion that might save other organizations this hassle in the future -- please consider allowing this option.? There really is no downside risk, if it is appropriately caveated. You could shroud it in all kinds of warnings about ill-advised configurations and such -- but a hard and fast rule that protects my expert list from what they need is enough to drive them away.? And it is too bad because in every, and I mean every other way this system was perfect for us.

Thanks,
Bill;
?

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:
Bill,

?> One, /just one/, of our lists has always been a "reach out for
?> help" list.? It needs to be unmoderated /and/ open to the public.

By "open to the public" I assume you mean unrestricted membership.

?> Is there a way to configure this that we are missing in the interface?

No.

The closest you can get is New Member Moderation, which will require
that at least one post from the new member be approved before the member
is automatically unmoderated.

Alternatively, you can set the group to allow posts by non-members, but
such messages are always moderated.

?> If not, why is this prohibited?? I understand that it opens that list
?> up to spam ...

That's the reason.

It would be an unusual setup, but you could promote an arbitrary number
of the more active group members to be moderators with minimal
privileges, and they can receive immediate notification of the
new-member posts requiring approval. The "message approval needed"
notices include a full copy of the pending message.

?> Why can't we choose to take that risk for one of our lists?

Because it potentially affects other Groups.io groups if the service
gains a reputation for delivering spam messages.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list
Join [email protected] to automatically receive all group messages.