Jack,

As I understand it the Calendar can only be viewed by Group Members.

Depends on your group's settings.

Ideally I would like minded public who are not members of the Club to
be able to see the forthcoming programme in an attempt to attract new
members. Can/could this be done?

Easily.

In the Features section (near the bottom) of your group's Settings page the first entry is for the Calendar. Among other choices it can be set to:

o Public can view, Subscribers can view and edit
o Public and subscribers can view, moderators can edit

Take your pick, depending on whether you want group members to be able to add or edit events.

Shal

Hi folks,

Wonder if you can help. I am the Owner (and Moderator at the moment) of a club Group. I am at present using the Calendar resource to compile the Club's forthcoming programme. As I understand it the Calendar can only be viewed by Group Members. Ideally I would like minded public who are not members of the Club to be able to see the forthcoming programme in an attempt to attract new members. Can/could this be done?

Thanks

Jack(;>J

--
-LeeAnne

?Archivist

开云体育

开云体育

jkm,

... not easy to guess if you don’t already know that groups.io
web pages purposely mung senders’ addresses. Until Catlady’s
explanation, I had been mystified and troubled by my inability
to see senders' email addresses when reading my group’s emails on the
group's websit.

Not the sender's address - those aren't shown at all on the web.

It is addresses that appear in the body of an email message that get purposely munged. The troublesome case is when a reply quotes someone else and the header to the quote contains that other person's address.

I now strongly suspect that, as more and more non-techhi refugees
(like myself) flee from from Y!Groups to groups.io they will need
more by way of basic, definitions and simply and clearly written
comprehensive, instructions ... I hope Mark and the Beta group will
think seriously about this and will try to recruit some really good
writers to help develop it.

I'm with you on that.

I don't know about recruiting (as in hiring), but Mark is definitely aware of the need and has accepted volunteer help behind the scenes as well as publicly in the beta group.

/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Groups.io-Help-page-Mock-up

The current description of the Bounce Handling feature, for example is largely of J's (the Catlady's) authorship, with some proofreading by me.

... should I send these thoughts to the Beta group (and if so how- I
am still learning my way around)?

Yes. The beta group is the official "suggestion box" for improvements to Groups.io. Join and post here:


Be aware that the beta group's archives are public, like GMFs. So don't post anything private there.

or directly to Mark (and if so, how?)

[email protected] is the official address for bug reports and account-related matters (or other things that shouldn't be posted in public).

Shal

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 03:11 pm, jkm wrote:

I think a group option to remove the fig-leaf is absolutely necessary, and I very much hope that Mark will quickly implement it.

Believe me, I'm 100% with you on this. I've been trying to get this to happen for something like a year! I think a little nudge to Mark on the beta group wouldn't hurt. :)

J

开云体育

Shal,
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. They're available *because* they're permanent.:)
J

J,

I argued that the argument was backwards, and that, conversely, it's
emails that are more permanent than the web archive. Messages in the
web archive can be deleted, but anyone who receives an email can keep
it for as long as they want to, and deletion of a group message does
nothing to affect that.

I agree with all of that.

The description of the emails as being "fleeting" can be misleading. The message itself isn't fleeting, as you correctly point out it may be retained by the recipient indefinitely.

Which is why I say availability is more the issue than permanence. The messages kept in email folders, permanently or not, don't matter because they are not available to others. Those kept in the Messages section on the web though are available to all current and future members (deletion aside). And in the case of a group with public archives available to everyone.

Shal

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 10:49 am, Shal Farley wrote:

The argument on the other side was based on the availability more than the permanence

I recall it differently, and also differ with what you say here. The email addresses are *available* to all group members who choose to receive messages via email, whether or not the group is private, and no matter how they manage to become a member of the group. Any member of any group will see, via their email, all email addresses posted to the group, if they read via email.

The issue is permanance. The argument was that the web archive is permanent but emails are fleeting, so that *future* members, people who were not members at the time the email was posted, would be able to see those emails via the web.

I argued that the argument was backwards, and that, conversely, it's emails that are more permanent than the web archive. Messages in the web archive can be deleted, but anyone who receives an email can keep it for as long as they want to, and deletion of a group message does nothing to affect that.

The real issue was permanence in the web archive as it relates to *future members*.

J

J said:

... the other side wanted to keep it for "privacy" (... their
argument was that they are not preserved forever in the web archive).

The argument on the other side was based on the availability more than the permanence of the Messages section on the web. That is, while a member may keep copies of their email messages indefinitely, those copies are generally not available to others.

The content of the group's Messages section, on the other hand, can be read and copied by any member, including any people of ill intent who may gain admission. This is less a concern in groups that have restricted membership and private archives, depending on how careful the moderators are about accepting new members, but a much larger concern in groups with open membership.

And it is of great concern in groups with public archives - such as GMF and beta - our messages are open to Google, Bing, Duck-Duck-Go, and other search engines, as well as to the web crawlers of every spammer and other kind of crook world-wide.

Shal

Thanx Shal & J.

I thought that might be what it meant but wanted to be sure.

Prior to this I had always heard it referred to as truncating, on Yahoo.

Much appreci...

Paul M.
==

Paul,

Sorry for any bother, but what does 'fig-leaf' in the above-quoted
text mean. It is obvioulsy being used here as a verb.

As J said it is the practice of hiding part of an email address (the domain part) when the address is displayed in the body of a message shown in the Messages section of a group's web pages.

I did more than a few Google searches but still could not find a
keyword combination which brought up a relevant definition as would
apply to an email addresses, etc., as presented in the above-quoted
text.

Sorry to have puzzled you. This may be my fault, I introduced the term into the lengthy debate in beta@ that J referred to. And the usage stuck.



I don't recall who coined it originally, but the term has long been used in several of the Yahoo groups devoted to group management.

It is a reference to the practice in some art forms of hiding the "private parts" of nude figures behind a representation of a fig leaf.
It is also a somewhat derisive allusion to the fact that, in both usages, it is pretty easy to guess what's hidden.

Shal

On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 04:04 am, <stanhopi@...> wrote:

but what does 'fig-leaf' in the above-quoted text
mean. It

It means to hide the email address by removing everything after the "at" sign and substituting ellipses. Email addresses are still figleafed in the archived (i.e., web) version of messages, except for email addresses ending in .io. So if I post my email address here:

j.olivia.catlady@...

only people reading via email will see the entire email address. If you read this message on the web, you will see

j.olivia.catlady@...

There was a long, hard debate on the beta group nearly a year ago about this "feature." Some people (including me) were strongly against it, arguing that the email addresses are available in the email version anyway, so hiding it on the web accomplishes little if anything; the other side wanted to keep it for "privacy" (even though the email addresses are still totally accessible to people reading via email, their argument was that they are not preserved forever in the web archive). Mark finally agreed to make the figleafing an optional setting, but he has still not implemented that. So the email addresses are still figleafed.

However, I recently discovered that the email addresses of messages from group members to the owner address of a group are figleafed also. That was not necessary because the address is seen by no one except the group moderators. So I reported it to Mark and he fixed it. This is the change reported in the change log this week.

J

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 04:46 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

This week's change log:
[snip]

* Don't fig-leaf the email address of a +owner message.

This is in reference to messages listed in the "+owner Messages" tab of a
given member's page.
[snip]

== ==

Hello again Shal (& All),

Sorry for any bother, but what does 'fig-leaf' in the above-quoted text
mean. It is obvioulsy being used here as a verb. I am asking because
this is the first time I have ever necountered the term used this way.

I did more than a few Google searches but still could not find a keyword
combination which brought up a relevant definition as would apply to an
email addresses, etc., as presented in the above-quoted text.

TIA

Paul Mitchell
Owner, CostaRicaLiving (Yahoo Groups)
==

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 07:20 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean as intentional quotes but they probably still get the ellipses treatment if you put them into replies.

I'll test that out. Could be just wishful thinking on my part.

I find it easier to use?Quote Whole Post?and then break the inserted quote apart rather than selecting part to quote before hitting reply

My point had to do with neither of those: I've never used Quote Whole Post (don't really like it), and selecting text before hitting reply works only for the first block-quote. I'm talking about the block-quote feature (depicted by the quotation marks in the toolbar, formerly indicated in the old editor by the term "block quote"). I prefer that feature and use it constantly. It consistently works (as it's working now) except for the one case of your previous post, which I suspected (and still suspect) was due to an interaction with bullet lists.?

J

J,

CHANGE: For messages that we don't think are replies to existing messages, display the entire message, even if it looks like part of the message is a quoted reply.

This looks like a change to the "top-posting algorithm," which formerly swept all quoted material, even intentional quotes, into ellipses, thus making an intentional quote disappear. I've been awaiting this fix for a long time.

Note that this applies only to messages "that we don't think are replies to existing messages". I'm not entirely sure what you mean as intentional quotes but they probably still get the ellipses treatment if you put them into replies.

BTW I'm noticing, Shal, that block-quoting parts of your message is not working in my response. (I'm having to indent by hand.)?(The only block quote working here was the one I achieved by selecting and copying your text before hitting "reply.") ...

If I think I'm going to reply to more than one part I find it easier to use Quote Whole Post and then break the inserted quote apart rather than selecting part to quote before hitting reply. It means I have to use Shift+Enter to break the quoted material apart (Enter alone just puts the newline inside the quote). But it also means I don't have to use the Block Quote button.

This one I'll try by copy/paste and then block quote:

... might have to do with the bulleted list, but not really sure.

I doubt that, my message was unformatted so those bullets were just plain text.

I'll test it out some more and possibly report it as a bug.

Ok. It seems to be working for me.

Shal

Please call out any you find significant.
Ok.

BUGFIX: Fixed config error that would cause hard bounces to not immediately go into bouncing state.

It had turned out that invalid-email-address bounces (which are characterized as hard bounces and should go "red" and be logged immediately) were only given the "blue" B. Significant because invalid email addresses were not going into hard-bouncing (i.e., "bounced") status, and therefore not logged as bouncing, until a possibly long ?period of time.?

* BUGFIX: In the Past Member view, some reasons were not being displayed.

Prior to the fix, in many cases it was impossible to tell how or why a past member was no longer in the group. (The view is available to premium groups only.)

CHANGE: For messages that we don't think are replies to existing messages, display the entire message, even if it looks like part of the message is a quoted reply.

This looks like a change to the "top-posting algorithm," which formerly swept all quoted material, even intentional quotes, into ellipses, thus making an intentional quote disappear. I've been awaiting this fix for a long time.

BTW I'm noticing, Shal, that block-quoting parts of your message is not working in my response. (I'm having to indent by hand.)?(The only block quote working here was the one I achieved by selecting and copying your text before hitting "reply.")?his might have to do with the bulleted list, but not really sure. I'll test it out some more and possibly report it as a bug.?

J

Hi all,

This week's change log:


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.


* Don't fig-leaf the email address of a +owner message.

This is in reference to messages listed in the "+owner Messages" tab of a given member's page.

I still wish there were a place where such messages from all persons (or at least all members) are collected in a single list. Even better if together with any sent from a moderator to a member (sent via the group's web site, of course).


Comments about these others are also welcome:

* BUGFIX: Fixed config error that would cause hard bounces to not immediately go into bouncing state.
* CHANGE: For messages that we don't think are replies to existing messages, display the entire message, even if it looks like part of the message is a quoted reply.
* NEW: You can now sign up for the Enterprise plan through the website.
* NEW: Catch a couple of French reply headers when displaying messages.
* BUGFIX: In the Subgroups tab, fix the archive privacy display of subgroups.
* NEW: Can now sort by Reason in the Past Member view.
* BUGFIX: In the Past Member view, some reasons were not being displayed.
* ROLLBACK: Subgroup storage is once again counted against the parent group storage.
* CHANGE: Upgrade Github API library to hopefully fix issue for people with more than 37 repositories.
* BUGFIX: Accessing an enterprise group's main group using the groups.io domain would redirect to the wrong group.
* BUGFIX: Single line HTML messages that start with 'At ' would be improperly collapsed.
* CHANGE: Allow emails to group aliases.
* BUGFIX: Messages with hashtags designated as special could not be replied to by non-moderators.
* BUGFIX: Code blocks in Markdown weren't working because of spurious line feeds.
* SYSADMIN: Track redis statistics
* SYSADMIN: Upgraded backup machine db03 because it ran out of memory processing the queue.

Please call out any you find significant.

Shal