On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Norman Pierson wrote:

But I wish my paying group had what some members would like so that they could be part of the group, instead of just receivers of emails.

There is nothing stopping them being "part of the group" other than themselves.

Sorry, but IMHO it really is that simple. As I have said previously (using different words) the time and trouble it takes to actually log in occasionally simply shouldn't register on the hassleometer given the context of other things that happen in life on a day to day basis. OK there might be a few who genuinely have difficulty with it, but I suspect that for the majority of refuseniks that isn't the case.

Chris

开云体育

Going back to the original analogy, I have a 16 year old car and my fob stopped working 2 years ago. I can still get into my car with the key, but f don't turn on the car within 10 seconds, my alarm goes off. Usually, I make it. When I don't, my neighbors hear a loud noise. I paid for the car 16 years ago. I don't feel that I should have to pay $450 now to get into my car, but that is what a replacement for costs.

My members have accepted that some of them are not able to login without the hassle of getting a new cookie or password. They feel inadequate, and some feel I'm inadequate for not making it easier.

They are users of my site within this host. The benefits of using gio outweigh the problem. But I wish my paying group had what some members would like so that they could be part of the group, instead of just receivers of emails.

One thing I just found out last night:?

If you have subgroups, change the display name in main; it will populate to the subgroups which do not have a display field to edit.? I did have one instance where the display name was different in one of the subgroups than the others, but when I changed the name in main, it correctly populated in the subgroups.? I then changed the name in main back to what it needed to be, and the changes occurred in the subgroups too.
Beth

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 07:52 AM, Barbara Howard wrote:

Sort by date taken is the best/most logical order to me.

I can see that this option would be helpful for some groups, but not necessarily al,l so if was an option all well and good.

For the group I moderate a fully indexed system would be more appropriate, and I am working up a suggestion to post on beta, but it is taking time to make its capabilities have the widest possible appeal.

Although an indexed system does mean more work for moderators to set it up initially, the result is an archive where members can find what they want using an alphabetic index, which seems (to me anyway) the optimum solution. I have created a working index for our group, but because the photo archive has no mechanism for an index it has to reside in ourgroup wiki, which is not ideal.

I'll try to finish the proposal sooner rather than later and give it an airing on GMF before suggesting it to Mark via beta.

Chris

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 02:52 AM, Barbara Howard wrote:

Each time I try to change this to "Sort by taken" my instruction is ignored and "Sort by posted" appears.

You should report this to [email protected].? The URL changes to reflect the 'taken' choice, but it doesn't actually sort them that way.? It also doesn't show the correct choice on the drop down box, as you noticed.

The default always reverts back to "Default by name" i.e. alphabetically.

This has been requested by many folks.? Having your sort options remembered on any part of the site that has them will likely happen, just a matter of when.? I believe it's been on the TODO list for a couple of years.

Duane
--
Help: /static/help
GMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Search button at the top of Messages list
A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions

开云体育

Cameron,

However, it appears that we should be able to set the "Group Moderation Setting" to make this the default for the group.

Yes, I strongly recommend this method over ever setting anyone to Override: not moderated.

Unfortunately, I am unable to find where I can change this setting.

On the group's Settings page, in the Spam Control section. There's a checkbox for Moderated. This will control posting by any member that doesn't have an override set.



If your group has the Restricted Membership box checked then unchecking Moderated is all you need to do.

If you don't want Restricted Membership, you can check New Users Moderated instead. Then you can manually change new members to Use Group Moderation Setting to immediately unmoderate them.



Or, set Unmoderate After to 1 and simply approve each new member's first post. That will automatically change them from Override: new user moderated to Use Group Moderation Setting, and is generally much less effort than manually changing them.

Note: Moderated and New Users Moderated are not mutually exclusive. You can leave New Users Moderated checked as your group's normal state and you are free to check and uncheck Moderated at need (e.g. to quell a flame war or other disturbance) without accidentally unmoderating all the new users.

Shal


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

Jim,

But a bit of research shows that with cookies deleted, visiting a Gio
group that requires subscribership to read DOES take you to a login
screen, while visiting a group that doesn't require subscribership to
read does NOT take you to a login screen.

Ah, so that's the missing factor.

Now the confusion makes more sense to me. Kind of ironic, given that GMF has public archives - but most of the time I'm going on site it is to access the Pending list. Which I do either through a link in the notice or by clicking on a pinned tab in my browser (which is almost always open to GMF's Pending list).

Given the cause, I don't see a 100% cure for this problem.

I don't know if it is readily possible for the page you land on to determine that you were previously at a page while logged in, and then put up the kind of banner Bruce suggested. I wouldn't want it to be there for people who are just visiting (were not previously logged in).
/g/GroupManagersForum/message/12579

Shal


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

Jim,

It sure looks to me like upon initial sign up one can set a password
without having to ask for a login via email.

True, but having done so your account is NC (Not Confirmed) until you receive and respond to an email verification request.

In NC status you don't receive group messages by email, and you can't access any members-only group pages - only public pages and your Account pages. Maybe your Subscription page as well.

So again, if you are having difficulty getting messages at that address, you are fairly well stuck.

Shal


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

Don,

Many emails get slowed down for as much as three days going from
ec2-35-174-158-239.compute-1.amazonaws.com to mx.cox.rs.oxcs.net

That's interesting. I think those may be on the /inbound/ side, representing processing within cox before the message was sent to groups.io. But that would only make sense if the sender of the message is also using cox.net.

and many are also slowed down from web01.groups.io to cmsmtp ...

That's more what I expected, outbound from the group to your inbox.

Unfortunately, when the delay is at the hand-off from one service (groups.io) to another (cox.net) you can't be sure if the delay was due to groups.io holding the message before handing it off, or cox.net not accepting the message when first presented. Mark could tell, from his outbound server logs (as could cox, from their inbound logs) but such detailed logs are not generally kept very long, often only one day or less.

Shal


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

I am a moderator of a group. When adding members we would like to allow them to post without the need for moderator approval. Currently we are doing this by setting each user to Override: not moderated, as in the attached image. However, it appears that we should be able to set the "Group Moderation Setting" to make this the default for the group. Unfortunately, I am unable to find where I can change this setting. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Cameron

Jim,

There's a setting that allows a user to keep his profile info private.

With respect to group owners and mods, that's incorrect. The Profile Privacy setting has three choices:

o Public
o Other members of your group
o Only group owners and moderators.

There is no setting to make the profile information completely private.

Moreover, the Email Alias field being discussed is not a part of the member's profile. It is neither explicitly or implicitly covered by the member's Profile Privacy setting.

I don't think there's explicit statement that the Email Alias would be private. It is, for example, revealed in some of the header fields (View Source) of any message sent from the alias address. Only moderators can access the View Source on site, but any member receiving the message as individual email could see it if they thought to look.

All that being the case, I'm not opposed to revealing a member's Email Alias (if set) to group moderators.

Editing it might be a bit more restricted. Moderators can edit a member's Email address only in Premium (or Enterprise) groups; the same rule should be applied to the Email Alias.

Shal


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

Received from Charlie McB at 10/30/2018 04:10 PM UTC:

Before I submit a suggestion to beta, can you help me imagine a reason why it might be a bad idea for an owner to have at least view access to a subscriber's Email Alias information? I realize that an Email Alias is part of an individual's personal Groups.io profile, and (unlike Display Name, for example) is not associated with a specific group. However, it seems reasonable that an owner should be able to know about an email address --
other than a member's original subscription address -- that can post messages to the group.

Why do you think you need this information? Why can't you just ask the user? He forgot? Too bad for him because the workaround you're requesting would violate the trust of thousands of other users.

There's a setting that allows a user to keep his profile info private. To give even a group owner access to info the user has been told will be kept private is a violation of trust. And - totally unencumbered by any facts - I'd GUESS it's a GDPR issue. You just don't give a user a setting that is said to make something private and then create a back door into that info that violates that original understanding. Not good even if there were no GDPR to consider.

Jim H

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 08:36 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:

post the raw results of the analysis, or preferably the complete original headers

That's discouraged on this group because it has public archives.? No sense allowing easy access to just anyone.

Duane?
--
Help: /static/help
GMF's Wiki: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Search button at the top of Messages list
A few site FAQs: /static/pricing#frequently-asked-questions

Received from dgrass1@... at 10/30/2018 03:43 PM UTC:

I'm still going to contact my ISP, but I thought I would update this slow down of emails using the analyzer.

Many emails get slowed down for as much as three days going from ec2-35-174-158-239.compute-1.amazonaws.com to mx.cox.rs.oxcs.net, and many are also slowed down from web01.groups.io to cmsmtp ...the last one for four days.

This info would be much more informative, and subject to further analysis, if you would post the raw results of the analysis, or preferably the complete original headers.

Jim H

Received from Bruce Bowman at 10/30/2018 03:02 PM UTC:

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:47 PM, Bart Fried wrote:

This leads me to think that the problem is on Cox.net's side and that they are holding the email for anti-spam verification or similar. He tells me that they are uncooperative and telling him its the forum server's issue.

Assuming that the "login link message" does eventually arrive, he can use the message header analyzer </g/GroupManagersForum/message/11926>discussed in this other thread to figure out where it's being held up.

In the meantime he should call his ISP's tech support and ask that his problem be escalated above the first line support he's probably been talking to. In my experience the higher level techs are much more helpful. He should explain that Gio email appears to be blocked and that Gio is a mailing list service like YahooGroups. They all know who YahooGroups is.

Alternatively - or in addition - he could write to Gio support and ask Mark to contact Cox on behalf of all of Gio so any blocks get lifted (and never return) from across the whole Cox system.

Jim H

Received from smulder3@... at 10/30/2018 10:01 PM UTC:

I tried pinging 66.175.222.12 from a command prompt. It just times out. I'm guessing that qualifies as a "connection issue".

No! That doesn't qualify as a legitimate connection issue that would result in blocking email.

The server at 66.175.222.12 is working just fine as an outgoing mail server. It's just configured to not respond to ping packets... or is inside a network or behind a firewall that doesn't allow ping packets to pass. There are some very good reasons to disable all (or at least most) services on a mail server other than mail-related services.

Jim H

Received from Shal Farley at 10/30/2018 08:06 AM UTC:

The two mechanisms are not exclusive. That is, one can always ask for login by email, whether or not you have set password. And in fact that's also the means by which you set a password in the first place, or reset it if you forget it.

It sure looks to me like upon initial sign up one can set a password without having to ask for a login via email. If all new Gio members would be pushed to do that... and write it down in a safe place... they would be one step ahead if they have sign in problems later due to 30-day cookie expiration.

Jim H

Received from Chris Jones via Groups.Io at 10/30/2018 07:16 AM UTC:

I can see that the (lack of) physical security of a mobile device can be a problem, but having said that can anyone be certain that a lost or stolen device can never be used to gain access to Groups.io simply by not having a permanent password set up? I would have thought not. (But then I don't have a mobile device!)

If the mobile device has access to the email account registered with Gio and the password to that email account is stored in the device - the latter being the norm since I NEVER see friends enter a password when checking mail on their mobile phones - it seems to me that someone with access to the device has all he needs to co-opt the Gio account... except when the ISP blocks email from Gio... which isn't the norm.

I wonder if there is any mileage in requesting a method of cancelling a permanent password so that once normal email service is restored a member can revert to requesting log - in links.

There is such a method now. Look in your "Account" and you'll find password change and delete links.

But why in heck would someone who has experienced a problem getting a login link because his ISP blocked the email from Gio ever want to delete his password and revert to asking for login links?

Jim H