Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
I moved to Groups.io and after that I invited all the bouncing members again. Almost 3200 members were moved and ca 500 bounced. About 30 of them joined us again on io and I guess that the rest of the mail addresses were indeed abandoned. Before we moved I sent out various messages to the group explaining what we were doing and after we moved I put a message on the homepage on Yahoo telling everyone that we have moved and blocked it for posting. I intend to keep the Yahoo group for another 6 months and then remove it. Cheers Ary -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [email protected] [mailto: [email protected]] Namens Louise via Groups.Io Verzonden: zondag 29 januari 2017 11:03 Aan: [email protected]Onderwerp: Re: [GMF] Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam I have considered getting a very large yahoo group transferred to io. The group has been in existence for nearly 2 decades so includes many members who are no longer active. I think my attempts to remove bouncing members in the past may have been misguided so no longer do that. The nature of the group means that there are many who never or rarely post but from time to time let me know they read every post. I suppose what I'm saying is that it is difficult to know exactly who really wants to be included. One issue for me is how to transfer a group to io without risking that a sizeable proportion of members are surprised to suddenly get posts from an address they don't recognise. It sounds as though the mere act of transferring a list membership to io, even if you attempt to warn and educate all members beforehand, is creating the likelihood that many posts will be marked as spam. On the very rare occasions that I send something as a special message there are always members who unsubscribe as a result. Not necessarily because they object to my message but because that had forgotten they were members and just reminded they no longer needed the group. Equally there are usually members who write in saying they are pleased to be reminded the group is still there as a resource. So the surprise element of finding a message from io may well provoke some to mark messages as spam and in some numbers if it is a large group. I have too many members in my group to sign up individually to an io group or to get individual informed consent about moving them across. The idea of a new group where every member chooses to be included is tempting. However, a wealth of experience from our archives would be lost in the process. I also wonder about the ethical implications of moving archives to a place where their original owners can no longer access them, even those members who have unsubscribed at one point. Louise Sent from my iPad On 29 Jan 2017, at 08:50, Fortney, James T <Fortney@...> wrote:
The bottom-line is that we as list administrators must work together to manage this problem. If we each insure that our lists only contain recipients that want to be included, and if we make it clear to our members that unwanted messages distributed by the list are to be reported to the list administrator or moderator rather than marked as SPAM, then the whole process will work better for all of us.
I suggest that each list administrator read this message twice. ;-)
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
JimF, I hope you heard my key point that most items that end up being
rejected as spam, or in (ISP created) spam folders, are only there
because someone marked the distribution server as a source of spam. What makes you think I mightn't have? I simply asserted that you've missed other parts of the discussion. What we do need to teach them is that blocking messages from lists is
not the correct way to solve list spam problems. You're preaching to the choir. The only thing I recall being questioned was how far one might try to take this user education. In today's world most ISPs do not create spam folders for what they
consider spam, they simply reject it or outright block it. Excuse me? ISPs may not, and I'll admit it has been a while since I've used ISP-based email, but go back and read the entirety of this thread, and those at beta@ which I've cited. The major email services used by our group members do provide Spam folders for their users, and direct messages they deem to be spam into those folders rather than the user's Inbox. That fact has been central to several aspects of this discussion. That said, those same email services do reject or drop (into a black hole) what might be an even larger number of messages that originate with unauthenticated sources. Starting a decade or more ago these authentication techniques brought an end to the heyday of the spambots (thank goodness). As you have stated, Users who have chosen to have spam folders for
items with a marginal score need to take the responsibility to review
them for Non-spam items and mark them accordingly. I didn't say anything about this being the user's choice. It is not. Once the email service has classified a deliverable message as spam the user has at best three choices for its disposition: delete unseen, deliver to the Inbox or another folder, or (the default) deliver to the Spam folder. Based upon the "FBL mechanism", only a period of not receiving spam
reports about the individual IP will clear it from the lists. You have confused FBL (FeedBack List) for RBL (Real-time Black List). FBLs are not based on IP addresses, they are confidential (contract-based) communications from an email recipient to an email sending service. In our case, Groups.io has registered to receive FBL reports from several of the major email services. I have an extremely negative opinion of email services which reject, greylist, or blackhole messages based on RBL information. I quit using Verizon as my ISP several years ago in part because I learned their RBL use was causing list messages I wanted to go missing. I encourage you to research how the "FBL mechanism" operates. I know what I need to know about RBLs. I suggest you go read up on what an FBL is. Shal
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Shal (et all) -
You commented:
- The [spam management] problem may seem simple if you
only take it that far. However there is a key point of this discussion
that is missing here. And that is the disposition of messages that land
automatically in the spam folder.
I hope you heard my key point that most items that end up being
rejected as spam, or in (ISP created) spam folders, are only there
because someone marked the distribution server as a source of
spam.
The spam problem is large and trying to tell users what spam rules they
apply at the local level is probably inappropriate.? What we do need
to teach them is that blocking messages from lists is not the correct way
to solve list spam problems.
- One line of argument is the assertion that it is not enough to teach
list subscribers not to mark messages as spam; that they must also be
educated to routinely groom their spam folder and mark as Not Spam as any
list messages which may appear there.
This is 100% true if the spam detection is being done by the users
application or is being performed by the ISP based upon marginal spam
scores.? In today's world most ISPs do not create spam folders for
what they consider spam, they simply reject it or outright block
it.? As you have stated, Users who have chosen to have spam folders
for items with a marginal score need to take the responsibility to review
them for Non-spam items and mark them accordingly.? Typically
however, this will only stop their ISP from marking the item as spam and
will not have an immediate effect of removing the distribution IP from
the list of spammers.? Based upon the "FBL mechanism",
only a period of not receiving spam reports about the individual IP will
clear it from the lists.???
- Another part of the discussion is about the list service's response
to being told (via the FBL mechanism) that a subscriber has marked a
message as spam, or (in some cases) has failed to mark as "Not
Spam" a message that was automatically delivered to the Spam
folder.
I encourage you to research how the "FBL mechanism"
operates.? II believe you will find it is primarily a macro
operation (creation of lists of non-compliant IPs) and only a relatively
small portion of it operates at the micro level (screening of individual
messages).? There are just too many messages to manage.
Another thought, maybe it is appropriate to start a new Thread when the
direction of the discussion changes.
ENJOY,
- JimF
|
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm, Jeff Powell wrote: Our home page is *FULL* of duplicate photos. All the time. Changing the order didn't help. Jeff, The duplicates are due to emailed responses (namely, Groups.io does not clip the prior photo). The reason changing the order of the emailed photos page helps is to aid in *removal* of those duplicates. Before the change, they were nearly impossible to find (in order to delete them) because they, unlike the home page, were not displayed in reverse chrono order. At least now the order matches the home page order so you can find the photos and delete them. I still think the duplicates problem needs to be fixed. Mark was considering nuking the entire home-page photo display (which some, including me, were in favor of, especially if the duplicates problem can't be fixed). J?
|
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm, Xaun Loc wrote: I typically visit the Gmail web interface about once a year just to see what
they have done to screw it up since my last visit (such as NOT letting me turn
off their spam filtering) Part of Gmail spam filtering can be turned off: in Gmail web-interface the gear icon - Settings - Filters and Blocked Addresses - Create a new filter - in "Doesn't have" type a long string of random letters - "Create filter with this search" - check "Never send it to spam" - "Create filter". A more specific filter (don't send group messages to Spam): in the search field at the top type: list:* then click the small triangle at the end of the search field, "Create filter with this search" - OK - check "Never send it to spam" - "Create filter". This doesn't affect messages which Gmail refused to accept because "too spammy" or from IP-address with too bad reputation. Else you'd drown in spam. I run my own mailserver and wrote spam filters for it by myself I didn't make a Spam folder. My mailserver either places a message in Inbox or refuses to accept it from the sender, so the human sender gets a descriptive rejection message about that. Spammers never read rejection messages. -- Lena
|
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 09:16 pm, Shal Farley wrote: Hi all,
This week's change log:
/g/beta/message/12766
Feel free to reply to this topic if you'd like to comment on the
changes. Or better yet, if you expect a lot of discussion start a new
topic (or rejoin an existing one) about a specific change.
I have only one comment... :) o CHANGE: Changed the default order of the Emailed Photos album to most
recent first.
This will probably help out those who've been plagued with duplicates
and other dysfunction in the list of Recently Posted Photo section of
your group's home page.
Our home page is *FULL* of duplicate photos. All the time. Changing the order didn't help. Ours is a conversation group. Reply to all happens a lot, and no one seems to bother trimming, so every reply has the same photos attached. Again. And again. And again. The number of duplicates in the photos section can be really large, as a result. This change is, effectively, invisible to me as a fix for the duplicate issue. No visible change in the behavior of our home page as a result. --jeffp
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Louise, ? ? ? ? ? In your case, why could you not send a message out to the existing group notifying the group of your intent to move? ? As a part of that message you might (I don't know what mechanisms are available) ask people for some sort of response (perhaps to a poll) as to whether they wish to remain on the group or not. ?If people are actually constantly reading, but not posting (that is, they're lurkers), then they should still respond that they wish to be carried over. ?For anyone who responds no or does not respond, cull them from your group. ? ? ? ? ? ?I would also include information about where the new group is located on Groups.io and information on how to subscribe, too. ?If someone is infrequently checking their e-mail and were culled, this allows them to resubscribe of their own volition when they realize the group's been moved in their absence. ? ? ? ? ? ?I don't understand why there should be any impact on an archive. ?That should be ported in its entirety, if that's possible. ?Current membership in a newly established Groups.io group is not necessary to keep old posts from former members in an archive. ?They stay there if the member drops out, don't they? ?I've never seen an archive purge former members' posts (without cause, that is).
Lena, ? ? ? ? ? ? I actually agree with the banning of members if: - if the welcome message to a group explains the issues with spam marking/unmarking, whitelisting, and how to use the Groups.io "Mute this Topic" mechanism
- it can be determined that the user actually performed the act of marking a group message as spam (as opposed to an e-mail filter outside their control doing so)
- they have received a single counseling from a moderator/owner after having manually marked one, perhaps thoughtlessly, and do so again
I have repeatedly said, and I will say it again, that users of any medium can and should be expected to understand the features, constructs, and limitations of that medium. ?They cannot be expected to divine these and need direct guidance and education. ?If, however, they refuse the guidance and education their membership should be terminated. Groups are just that, groups, and when the actions of a single member are disruptive or risk damaging the larger group in a substantial way, they've been warned, and they persist in their behavior(s) then banning is the appropriate response. ?There seems to be a set of owners who believe that "membership count" is the ultimate metric for a group; it isn't. ? I've watched groups die because either they were entirely unmoderated and a small group of troublemakers arrived and polluted the group with so much garbage that it was no longer worth the effort or they were moderated but the moderator resisted removing problem members even after being repeatedly petitioned to do so. ?When you've got a member that is clearly driving other members crazy and not contributing anything of value on a routine basis they're not worth having in the group. Brian?
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
I have considered getting a very large yahoo group transferred to io. The group has been in existence for nearly 2 decades so includes many members who are no longer active. I think my attempts to remove bouncing members in the past may have been misguided so no longer do that. The nature of the group means that there are many who never or rarely post but from time to time let me know they read every post. I suppose what I'm saying is that it is difficult to know exactly who really wants to be included.
One issue for me is how to transfer a group to io without risking that a sizeable proportion of members are surprised to suddenly get posts from an address they don't recognise. It sounds as though the mere act of transferring a list membership to io, even if you attempt to warn and educate all members beforehand, is creating the likelihood that many posts will be marked as spam. On the very rare occasions that I send something as a special message there are always members who unsubscribe as a result. Not necessarily because they object to my message but because that had forgotten they were members and just reminded they no longer needed the group. Equally there are usually members who write in saying they are pleased to be reminded the group is still there as a resource.
So the surprise element of finding a message from io may well provoke some to mark messages as spam and in some numbers if it is a large group.
I have too many members in my group to sign up individually to an io group or to get individual informed consent about moving them across. The idea of a new group where every member chooses to be included is tempting. However, a wealth of experience from our archives would be lost in the process. I also wonder about the ethical implications of moving archives to a place where their original owners can no longer access them, even those members who have unsubscribed at one point.
Louise
Sent from my iPad
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 29 Jan 2017, at 08:50, Fortney, James T <Fortney@...> wrote:
The bottom-line is that we as list administrators must work together to manage this problem. If we each insure that our lists only contain recipients that want to be included, and if we make it clear to our members that unwanted messages distributed by the list are to be reported to the list administrator or moderator rather than marked as SPAM, then the whole process will work better for all of us.
I suggest that each list administrator read this message twice. ;-)
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Louise, I think it depends on the technology you use. Sometimes it¡¯s not so
easy. I can only move emails out of spam to the relevant inbox when
using my iPhone or I can delete them if they really are spam. I can¡¯t
mark any as Not spam. When I look at those same emails on my macbook
they appear in my inbox where I¡¯ve moved them in brown type and can
be marked from there as Not spam. Interesting. Does the brown type have a documented meaning. Is that, for example, the color of all the messages in your Spam folder? I haven¡¯t discovered a way of doing this on my phone. I suppose there
are people who do not have access to a computer for mail and rely
entirely on their phones or tablets for email? That's too bad. I think you're right that there are some, probably even a growing number, who never or seldom see their email through a desktop interface. Shal
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
James, I would like to offer a couple of additional thoughts on this subject
because I believe the problem is being made much more difficult than
it actually is.
...
The solution is to insure that only users who want to be on a list are
included (use verification messages or sign-up forms), and educate
your users (and everyone else you can) that messages distributed by
list servers (like Groups.IO) SHOULD NEVER BE MARKED AS SPAM (I think
that was the original suggestion. Hopefully all now understand
why.). The problem may seem simple if you only take it that far. However there is a key point of this discussion that is missing here. And that is the disposition of messages that land automatically in the spam folder. One line of argument is the assertion that it is not enough to teach list subscribers not to mark messages as spam; that they must also be educated to routinely groom their spam folder and mark as Not Spam as any list messages which may appear there. Another part of the discussion is about the list service's response to being told (via the FBL mechanism) that a subscriber has marked a message as spam, or (in some cases) has failed to mark as "Not Spam" a message that was automatically delivered to the Spam folder. The rest of the conversation is about whether any of this is necessary or effective. Shal
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:31 am, Jeff Powell wrote: Looking at the people who have marked group messages as spam:
* 1 person did so 8 times
* 3 people did so 3 times These people (who marked group messages as spam more than twice) hurt entire groups.io email reputation, they are the main cause why email services put messages from groups.io into the Spam folder or bounce them. This affects not only your group, but all groups on groups.io. Please ban these people from your group. I don't believe in education in such cases. Some people are too stubborn or/and too stupid.
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
I am new to Groups.IO but have operated lists on many services over the
last twenty-five years.? I would like to offer a couple of
additional thoughts on this subject because I believe the problem is
being made much more difficult than it actually is.
The basic comment starting this thread was the suggestion that users
should be encouraged to never mark a group distribution item as
spam.? The concept is simple, and if you understand how the group
distribution system works and how the spam identification process works
at most ISPs, you will understand why none of your users should ever mark
group distribution messages as spam.? List administrators must
encourage their members to report unwanted messages to them so management
action can be taken at the list level.
Let me start by explaining that most of the ISPs do not do their own spam
identification.? The majority of them, and almost all of the larger
services (AOL is the prime example), use the spam identification services
specifically set up to track the source of spam.? The spam
identifiers (like SPAMCOP and many others) get their raw data from the
ISPs when users mark a message as spam.? The problem that has
evolved is that some of the spam identification sources (unfortunately
some of the ones used by many ISPs) collect the forwarding mail server IP
address as the source of the item marked as spam.? Many of these
services are not sophisticated enough to know the difference between the
actual source of the message and the server that relayed the message onto
the Internet.
Clearly, when the spam identification services can not distinguish
between the source IP and the distribution IP, all of those messages
distributed by companies like Groups.IO look like they are all coming
from the distribution IP.? This results in the distribution IP
address being added to the spam list and all of a sudden many lists on
Groups.IO which are all supported by the same distribution server are
impacted because ISPs (like AOL) will not accept any messages distributed
by the Groups.IO distribution servers.
In summary, because of the unsophisticated analysis performed by many of
the spam identification services, the spam feedback process does not work
correctly for messages distributed by list service providers like
Groups.IO (I use HostMonster for many of my commercial lists and have the
same problem there when users.of other lists start marking messages as
spam and it is the distribution server that gets listed as the spam
source instead of the primary mail server where the message
originated.).
The solution is to insure that only users who want to be on
a list are included (use verification messages or sign-up forms), and
educate your users (and everyone else you can) that messages distributed
by list servers (like Groups.IO) SHOULD NEVER BE MARKED AS SPAM (I think
that was the original suggestion.? Hopefully all now understand
why.).? The task of insuring that none of their customers are
spamming unfortunately falls back on the list service provider (like
Groups.IO) since they must fight the battle of keeping their server IPs
off of the spammer lists.? Good list providers are actively
identifying which list distributions are being tagged as spam and
selectively culling their customers who do not police
themselves.
The bottom-line is that we as list administrators must work
together to manage this problem.? If we each insure that our lists
only contain recipients that want to be included, and if we make it clear
to our members that unwanted messages distributed by the list are to be
reported to the list administrator or moderator rather than marked as
SPAM, then the whole process will work better for all of us.
I suggest that each list administrator read this message twice.?
;-)
Regards,
- JimF
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Xaun Loc, Unfortunately, at least for this discussion, one of the things it
CAN'T tell us is how many of the users on those large services are
using webmail and how many are using various email clients. That's true. Nor can it tell us which may be using a mobile interface, which in some respects may be more like a desktop email client than like the service's web interface. For example, if someone ran the figures for this group, I'd be
counted as a Gmail user, but I typically visit the Gmail web interface
about once a year just to see what they have done to screw it up since
my last visit (such as NOT letting me turn off their spam filtering); Same here, except I visit the web interface more frequently. In part to check into the Spam folder, and sometimes because I'm not at my primary computer but want to send a message. I also use the Gmail app on android, but composing messages there is ... painful, so I usually avoid that. whereas all my mail is handled via POP3/SMTP using an email client. Until tonight I'd say the same. But I just set up this account for IMAP/SMTP access on my primary computer. I decided it was time to find out how that works out for me. Shal
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
That's great information.? Unfortunately, at least for this
discussion, one of the things it CAN'T tell us is how many of the users on those
large services are using webmail and how many are using various email
clients.? For example, if someone ran the figures for this group, I'd be
counted as a Gmail user, but I typically visit the Gmail web interface about
once a year just to see what they have done to screw it up since my last visit
(such as NOT letting me turn off their spam filtering); whereas all my mail is
handled via POP3/SMTP using an email client.
Your wish is my command, since the members list download button is where you
pointed me to.? :)
2111 member email addresses downloaded
?? 973 (46%) yahoo.com
?? 574 (27%)
gmail.com
???? 51 (2.5%)
aol.com
???? 48 (2.2%)
hotmail.com
???? 34 (1.5%)
comcast.net
???? 31 mac.com
????
30 sbcglobal.net
???? 25
verizon.net
???? 22 me.com
???? 17
earthlink.net
???? 12 msn.com
????
10 ymail.com
???? 10
att.net
?????? 9
surfnetc.com
?????? 7
icloud.com
?????? 5
yahoo.co.uk
?????? 4
pacbell.net
?????? 4
mindspring.com
?????? 4 - 3 users per domain
(12 users)
????? 18 - 2 users per domain (36
users)
??? 195 - 1 user per domain (195 users)
So, Yahoo addresses are LOT more common than AOL addresses, at least in our
user base. I leave additional analysis to those who are interested.
?
|
??????????????????????????????????????????????? Hi, tried to bring this up with mark on the beta, but either it did not get through, or he does not want to deal with it. I changed providers and now with my republic , and have to use hide.me, as when I try to access groups.io, says cannot access the page, have been in touch with my republic, they say it is a google problem, did get in contact with google Australia, and they say, no problem at their end. So any one had a similar or same problem, and how to fix this. Marvin. ? Sent from for Windows 10 ?
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
From: Brian Vogel Most e-mail clients and web interfaces (mobile is, indeed, a thing of its
own and would require more research) have relatively straightforward
ways to classify or declassify messages as spam.
I don't think we should be trying to take a tutorial style approach so
much as making users aware that they need to find out how their
e-mail interface of choice can classify/declassify a given message as
being spam and what whitelisting is and that they should consider
using this mechanism for their e-mail interface of choice when they
get the welcome message. This presumes that users are (1) capable of understanding, and (2) willing to expend some effort on their own My own experience suggests that even in relatively motivated groups, one or both of those conditions will often not be met. I also know that many will ignore this information, but at least it will
have been presented. I get really frustrated when people complain that
"well, they don't know that" when you've included the information, in
writing, and it's not buried in a message that looks like a legal contract Prepare to spend a lifetime of being frustrated.
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Apples have email programs that allow you to train the Junk mail to automatically move messages from someone or containing certain words to the junk folder. The rules for doing this can be quite complex.
I use SpamSieve and get almost no spam. it all goes to the spam folder automatically and is deleted in a week.
Sharon.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 28, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
Louise,
I can't speak to how marking as "not spam" might be done on iOS since I have never been merged into the Apple borg and have limited exposure to iPhones and iPads. I would have to believe that there is some way of doing this.
J,
I really have no idea whether there are users who are actually marking messages from the group(s) as spam, but I would not be shocked one bit if some were. This is not to say that the automatic server side or even e-mail client classification is not also taking place as well.
As far as I am concerned basic e-mail literacy requires that you understand the idea of declassifying something that arrives marked as spam, regardless of what did the marking, and also how to do whitelisting. I have to believe that both of these things act as a feedback loop of some sort to the e-mail providers as their spam filters have to have some sort of "learning" mechanism and it sounds like group owners are getting back some pretty detailed information regarding when things are being bounced back as spam and which providers are doing this. That does leave a bit of mystery with regard to who is doing the marking, but it does give a direct indicator as to what companies should be notified that groups.io is a subscription service and anyone receiving any message originating from same had to intentionally subscribe in order for that to happen.
Brian
|
Hi all, This week's change log: /g/beta/message/12766Feel free to reply to this topic if you'd like to comment on the changes. Or better yet, if you expect a lot of discussion start a new topic (or rejoin an existing one) about a specific change. o NEW: Now we're tracking deliveries of group notices. This is the big one for me, and likely for anyone who's been having trouble getting new members confirmed and approved. It means the "Email Delivery History" tab when you open a (pending) members page will be more complete - it will tell you whether the initial notices were accepted (successful) or rejected (unsuccessful, bounced) by the (would-be) member's email service. Alas, it won't tell you if the notice went to spam or was otherwise diverted from the member's inbox - those will still appear as successful. But at least you'll know that it was sent and that the problem is on the member's side. o CHANGE: Google has announced they will no longer permit .js attachments, so we're now also blocking them. One more for the list of .com, .exe, .bat, .scr and other banned file types. Sigh. More dysfunction brought about by the intersection of crooks and clueless. This one bugs me because every once in a while I or a coworker forgets and tries to send a test program to a client. BAM! message rejected. Sometimes we've even been blocked as a result and had to go to a client and ask them nicely to have a chat with their IT department (or outside service) about unblocking us. Which always sets up a bunch of tense inquiries from their management. Ok, so wrap it in a .zip file. Nope. Sometimes .zip is banned too, or else they are inspected and the forbidden file type found inside. So you rename the file to some harmless type. But then you have to explain to the client what they have to do to make it work. Uh, I guess I went a little ranty there. One my pet peeves. I hate that this is why we can't have nice things. o CHANGE: Changed the default order of the Emailed Photos album to most recent first. This will probably help out those who've been plagued with duplicates and other dysfunction in the list of Recently Posted Photo section of your group's home page. o CHANGE: We now catch duplicate messages sent to groups. Likewise of interest to those groups that have had this happen on incomming messages. Back to the changelog, anyone have comments about these, or others: o CHANGE: Changed the max number of messages in a digest from 25 to 12. o BUGFIX: If an invite had a name associated with it, we weren't using it when creating a new user. o CHANGE: Tweaked the formatting and sort order of the poll response page. Please call out any you find significant. Shal
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Re gmail's spam filter, it has reliably put almost all of my messages from one mailing list that I'm very interested in into spam, despite my constantly marking them "not spam." So the description "amazingly accurate" is not what I've experienced with gmail. OTOH, I can't compare it with anything else, since gmail is all I use. J
|
Re: Group Members Marking Group Messages As Spam
Jeff, Your wish is my command, since the members list download button is
where you pointed me to. :)
2111 member email addresses downloaded ... Thanks again! I leave additional analysis to those who are interested. Um, ok. Taking the two together, I can compute the percentage of users of each service who've been removed for marking messages as spam: 41.7% msn.com 25.5% aol.com 8.3% hotmail.com 4.2% yahoo.com That way of looking at it makes Yahoo Mail no longer nearly as prominent. It is tempting to conclude that the MSN and AOL interfaces do a relatively abysmal job of guiding their users about managing their spam box and/or are much more likely to to automatically classify group messages as spam. But the numbers are really too thin to support such an aggressive interpretation. It would be shocking if such huge percentages held up taken over all of Groups.io. In fact, I only have a real answer for one: the person who has marked
things as spam 8 times. As far as I can tell she is doing it
deliberately, as part of trying to "manager her email box". I
suggested she not do that, but she continues to do it. Regularly. There's no accounting for some people. She's probably following instructions she was told, or thought she was told. Perhaps with some misinterpretation along the way. There certainly has been enough mythology about managing email, and particularly spam, over the years. And a lot of loose definitions of just what is spam. That said, years ago I worked for an ISP that handled hundreds of
thousands of email accounts. At the time, AOL was notorious for
blacklisting SMTP servers by IP address because they had a spam report
against it. Yahoo Groups fought that battle for years also. It prompted them to create a group dedicated to publishing their IP addresses in the hopes that the tech staff of email services would subscribe and whitelist them. Gmail's spam filters have been amazingly accurate for me, and I
haven't had a problem, but I guess it could happen. Unless they have
a different Bayesian database for each user (which was what the ISP I
worked at did, actually, but we were an oddball in that realm). I don't know that it would be a Bayesian filter, and likely not good old CRM114, but their behavior indicates to me that in the mix of things they consider there is something that more strongly weights ones own marking as spam (or specifically not-spam). When I first started using this gmail address with Groups.io I had many instances of the "New Subscriber" notification go to spam. It didn't take more than a couple of instances of marking them not spam and now they never do. Shal
|
Shal Farley
Lena