I created a PayPal button for contributions to my group. It generated the html code.

1. When I paste the html code in our group profile (eg what shows up when you hit the "Home" button), it displays perfectly (I placed it in the source code window and hit ok when editing the existing profile, then updated the site).

2. When I paste that same exact html code in a message (opening the source code window, etc. and hitting "ok") it displays perfectly.? But when I SEND that message, and then view the message, it does not display correctly, only part shows up.

So my question is, why does the same code that works great when put in the group profile, not work the same when put in a message and sent?

Any clues???

开云体育

开云体育

I would as well. I'm not an expert or anything like that, but I do agree.?A "no mail" wording would be nice. Most of my members in my groups I run have more?experience in this stuff than I do, but still. The "you have ben set to no mail because ..." is a good idea.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 01:37 pm, Jeremy Harrison wrote:

Given the unsophistication of many members (which means that they have no idea of spam filters, let alone what to about them), and the difficulties of understanding what anyone thinks is going on (are e-mails sent to spam 'accidental' or 'deliberate' (and if so to what end)?), anything intended to cause group members to take any particular action is unlikely to succeed, certainly beyond a simple click (and frequently even that).

I think we should also consider that many Owners and Moderators might fall into the "unsophisticated" description as well. I would never try to pass myself off as any sort of "IT specialist". Even if we are a sort of "first line of defence" there are going to be limits to what we can do to advise bewildered members. Thank goodness for this forum!

There is the question of what to do about groups where 'no mail' is not allowed - either it should be forced (overriding group owner's setting) or (in this case only) that they should be unsubscribed.

I didn't suggest that earlier because I didn't want to make any reconfiguration of how Groups.io operates bigger than it needed to be; for all I know it might be an easy option to implement - OTOH it might be a real headache. (See my comment above about not being an IT specialist!) The big plus about your suggestion is that it would satisfy both camps.

FWIW I would support the draft wording of your "you have been set to no mail" message.

Regards,

Chris

Yes - one person on HTML not receiving digest, changed to plain digest, don't know yet if that is working or not

Given the unsophistication of many members (which means that they have no idea of spam filters, let alone what to about them), and the difficulties of understanding what anyone thinks is going on (are e-mails sent to spam 'accidental' or 'deliberate' (and if so to what end)?), anything intended to cause group members to take any particular action is unlikely to succeed, certainly beyond a simple click (and frequently even that).

My thought is that unsubscribing people, and allowing them to rejoin the group, is perhaps a bit brutal, and will frequently lead them to yo-yo out and back into the group. and not necessarily resolve the 'marked as spam' problem.

Better to set them to 'no mail', with a message saying something like
"Messages sent to you have been reported as spam, so we (groups.io) [assume you do not wish to receive them and] have set you to 'no mail' and won't send any more. If you no longer wish to be a group member then <do this>. Alternatively you may continue to read messages at <web address>. Should you wish to receive e-mails please ensure that they are NOT marked as spam (this may be done automatically by your e-mail provider, so you may need to change your settings with them), and change your e-mail delivery preference at <webpage> " ?

There is the question of what to do about groups where 'no mail' is not allowed - either it should be forced (overriding group owner's setting) or (in this case only) that they should be unsubscribed.

Jeremy?

Yes,? you can do this if you just click on your name or user ID, it will then take you to the regular login screen.? I just did it now, I had the same screen you did.

Barb B

Chris,

I /can/ see the rationale behind this. However, I find myself
wondering about "training spam filters"; precisely what does it mean?

Most content-based spam filters have a provision for users to make corrections - marking as "not Spam" messages which should not have been delivered to the Spam folder, and marking as "Spam" those which were delivered to the Inbox but should have been in the Spam folder.

The "should" in the above is deliberately subjective. Ideally, the filter takes the user's corrections into account to better tune the results to each user's preferences. Some email services' filters are better at this than others.

My ISP is BT (I'm in the UK) although I normally use Outlook as my
email client. When we first migrated to Groups.io I found that quite a
few messages from Groups.io were being diverted by BT (or whoever!)
having marked them as spam, so unless I went looking for them they
were invisible.

This is a common problem when using an email client via the POP protocol: the client sees only the server's Inbox, messages diverted to other folders (such as Spam) at the server are invisible to the client. Using the IMAP protocol instead has several benefits, not the least of which is making the rest of your server folders accessible through the client.

invisible. My immediate workaround was to switch all spam filtering
off - obviously not without risk but at the moment the result is
manageable.

When I was using POP I would generally turn off the email service's spam filter as well, or tell it to mark the messages but deliver them to the Inbox anyway. Then my POP client (Eudora Pro) had its own spam filter - which I generally found to be better than my ISP's filters.

However, I also have a Yahoo mail account only because it was
unavoidable as a Yahoo Group member (several of them) & moderator (of
one). Try as I might I cannot find a corresponding means of defining
safe senders; /yes/ I can mark individual emails as "not spam" but how
many times would I have to do that for Yahoo to "learn" that
@groups.io messages were safe? Would it /ever/ actually learn that?

I have several as well, but I don't access them except for testing things. So I really can't tell you anything about the nature or quality of Yahoo Mail's filter.

I believe though that you can set up a filter in Yahoo Mail that will match any message with "groups.io" in the To/CC field and have the action be to send it to the Inbox. But you'd have to try it to see if it bypasses the Spam designation.

Is Yahoo the exception, with ALL other mail providers allowing
specified senders to be marked as being safe?

I'm not sure, it may be the other way around. Most of the time I've read instructions for particular email services it seems like the advice is to either add the address to your address book, or to add a filter rule. The trend may be away from separate white/black lists.

With such a proliferation of Mail Providers it is almost certainly too
simple to expect there to be a "one size fits all" instruction to
members.

That is certainly true.

Shal
--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:26 am, Marv Waschke wrote:

The danger is that email may decline as a common communication method.

For some specialised applications, possibly; for "general" use then highly improbable IMHO.

You also queried Oath's apparent indifference to "the chaos in Yahoo Groups". There have been odd rumours for years suggesting that Yahoo was probably hoping that groups would simply "go away", and of course that is exactly what has happened, courtesy of Groups.io! Oath may also take the view that there are more important matters to deal with than "groups".

For myself I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if for some reason "groups by email" were suddenly disabled; the Groups.io web interface is just so much better than Yahoo's ever was; much faster responding and generally much more user - friendly, to the point where my personal choice is now to use web access rather than email. I find it much easier to keep track of the views expressed by contributors using web access rather than email.

Of course, as in so many things, YMMV!

Chris

I hate to get into this conversation, but here's my two cents: whatever groups.io does about this, it's barely even a slap on the wrist if it lets the member right back in again, which it does. It's like going through the motions. In fact, in my group if I've seen that it's happened, I just direct-add the person back in, since we're a premium group with that capability. I'm not saying do it or don't do it. I just don't see it having much value. But maybe I don't have a thorough grasp of the situation.
--
J

I think Mark is right. The problem will not diminish, and could get worse, if members are not forced to adjust their spam filters to allow for emails from the groups. It's harsh medicine, but as long as spam filters remain as unsophisticated as they are now, email will remain vulnerable to spamming. Spam filters could be much more sophisticated than they are now. Self-learning systems are not quite baked, IMHO, but they are getting better every day and they are well suited to discerning spam filters.

The danger is that email may decline as a common communication method. In software development, for example, there has been a mass movement away from using email for open group communication because spam is too much of a bother. This is unfortunate because the alternatives, mostly messaging systems like Slack, are good for conversation, but not so good for the kind of interaction that occurs in many groups.io groups in which the exchange is of short essays rather than conversation.

Why isn't Oath: paying attention to the chaos in Yahoo Groups? Perhaps because they perceive that email groups are dying. Spam issues are one cause for decline. I think Mark is right to fight it with strong medicine.
Best, Marv
And Happy Easter!

That is what they changed the message to on the login screen a while back. I also found it confusing and not really appropriate to the situation. Just ignore the message and use the address and password on your Yahoo account to login.

Jonathan

Thanks Shal. That clarifies things. I'll submit a request to be able to send a timezone for the Message History table, which would make especially sense for groups that are local in nature. ?

Wim van Dam

? 12:48 pm??? It would be very helpful to be able to search / browse groups by category.? ?There are new groups on Groups.io but it is not easy to find them for a specific interest area.? For example I'd like to see the new groups for "Amateur and Ham Radio" that are being formed.? See the illustration below, I don't think there is a good way to do this currently but it seem like it would not be difficult to add.

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) NN4ZZ (dot) com

RE to:?/g/GroupManagersForum/message/6797

Another point of view. (To my last message.)

AFTER you get in, I would set up an extra Co_Owner in a different Yahoo Profile
with a different e-mail address (non-Yahoo) or with some very trusted friend.

Think of this as YOUR other way in...
This assumes Yahoo is working a little now, or then <grin>

Rick

Just like groups.io, Yahoo has always forced me to re-login periodically.

Bruce