Re: Query over 'Max Attachment Size'
A follow up query, if anybody is able to elucidate:
Is the test for 'Max Attachment Size' done on the (total) attachments (only) size, (as one would expect), or on the total mesage size (including attachments, text, headings, ....)?
I ask having had unexpected results from a post with two attachments totalling about 450 kB.
Jeremy?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 02:42 PM, Duane wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 08:31 AM, Jeremy Harrison wrote:
Is the 'Max Attachment Size' (for 'attachments that you receive in group email messages') in User Advanced Preferences a value per attachment or per email message?
Based on a quick test, it's the total.? I sent a message with a 169KB file and a 65KB file with a limit of 100KB and both were converted to links in the email I received.
Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On 2023-06-14 15:10, Peter S.
Shenkin via groups.io wrote:
I have no plan to add a discussion group to this
group. In view of that, do you still think it's a
mistake to leave it open for viewing and for membership?
Personally, if it was my group, I'd have it Announcement-Only as you
have, with access to the Directory and Member List disabled, and
public I guess would be OK, as long as I have it setup so new
applicants have to be approved, and also set a Pending Membership
questionnaire notice so they can reply to let you know why they
want to join.? That should help safeguard against most of the
undesirables, as most of the times they don't bother replying to the
questionnaire.? Another advantage of screening applicants is that
IIRC, just like the Welcome notice that Pending Membership notice
doesn't contain any boilerplate text.
For example, if I meet someone at a gig and they
want to get announcements of my?gigs, could I not just
invite them to join?
Yes, and that would be the preferable way since those folks don't
get that questionnaire notice (since you invited them it is
assumed they are legit), so as long as they accept the invitation
they become members right away.? It's like DirectAdd in a sense but
the difference is the member has to "push" the final button to
become member instead of being added by you, so the onus is on them
to actively do something to become a member, which also more-or-less
verifies they are interested in joining.? Leave DirectAdd when
you're dealing with someone maybe not computer-savvy, or having
email problems, etc.? Invired members will get just the Welcome
notice (from your group after accepting the invitation, they may
also get a system generated notice beforehand if they had to create
a new groups.io account)
Cheers,
Christos
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 03:26 PM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
What would be the downside of that, and what alternative might be better??
Since it is an announcement only group, probably no downside. You could add a footer that is added automatically to each message -? In Admin, Settings, Message Formatting. Perhaps you could put "Find me online at (put your groups.io account) or through Google." Frances -- Help available from Groups.io help and GMF wiki.
?
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
Hi,
I have no plan to add a discussion group to this group.
In view of that, do you still think it's a mistake to leave it open for viewing and for membership? For example, if I meet someone at a gig and they want to get announcements of my?gigs, could I not just invite them to join?
What would be the downside of that, and what alternative might be better??
-P.
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 2:17?PM Christos Psarras < christos@...> wrote:
On 2023-06-14 10:31, Peter S.
Shenkin via wrote:
The
issue for me isn't privacy but a more user-friendly atmosphere.
So I don't mind people I don't know joining and looking in.
You should be very careful having your group wide-open like that and
also public, especially if you create a discussion subgroup, as
spammers/scammers will eventually sneak in if the front door is
open.
Cheers,
Christos
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On 2023-06-14 10:31, Peter S.
Shenkin via groups.io wrote:
The
issue for me isn't privacy but a more user-friendly atmosphere.
So I don't mind people I don't know joining and looking in.
You should be very careful having your group wide-open like that and
also public, especially if you create a discussion subgroup, as
spammers/scammers will eventually sneak in if the front door is
open.
Cheers,
Christos
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
Thanks, Donald. I am already a member. I did report a concern a few weeks ago which, in fact, Mark took care of.
-P.?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023, 9:49 AM Donald Hellen < donhellen@...> wrote: Peter,
Join the beta group here at the link Duane provided earlier:
and state your suggestion with this at the end of the subject line:
#Suggestion
like:
Subject: Change Direct Add Message #Suggestion
and start a discussion. The owner will see it. There will be some
discussion about it and then the owner will likely comment.
Donald
----------------------------------------------------
Some ham radio groups you may be interested in:
/g/ICOM? ?/g/Ham-Antennas
/g/HamRadioHelp? ? /g/Baofeng
/g/CHIRP?
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
Thank you Duane, as always. The issue for me isn't privacy but a more user-friendly atmosphere. So I don't mind people I don't know joining and looking in. I'll consider your invitation suggestion, though.?
-P.?
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:58 AM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
The problem is the Direct Add message, not the Welcome Message.
Final thoughts here.? Why not just invite them instead of Direct Add?? You'd still have some boilerplate in the invitation, but you can insert additional information from an Invite notice or customize further before sending.? The Invite and the Welcome would be sent separately, so possibly less annoyance.? You wouldn't even need a premium group for that.
Of course, you always have the option of going back to your personal email method.
If you're going to keep paying for the group, why not add a subgroup to allow members to discuss things?
I notice that your group isn't restricted, so anyone can join at any time.? Also, the message archive is public, so anyone can read that as well.
Duane
--
Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
Peter, Join the beta group here at the link Duane provided earlier: and state your suggestion with this at the end of the subject line: #Suggestion like: Subject: Change Direct Add Message #Suggestion and start a discussion. The groups.io owner will see it. There will be some discussion about it and then the owner will likely comment. Donald ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: /g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng/g/CHIRP
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 12:58 AM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
The problem is the Direct Add message, not the Welcome Message.
Final thoughts here.? Why not just invite them instead of Direct Add?? You'd still have some boilerplate in the invitation, but you can insert additional information from an Invite notice or customize further before sending.? The Invite and the Welcome would be sent separately, so possibly less annoyance.? You wouldn't even need a premium group for that. Of course, you always have the option of going back to your personal email method. If you're going to keep paying for the group, why not add a subgroup to allow members to discuss things? I notice that your group isn't restricted, so anyone can join at any time.? Also, the message archive is public, so anyone can read that as well. Duane -- Lots of detailed information can be found in the Owners Manual and Members Manual.
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 06:58 AM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
I don't see why two separate messages have to be sent. Why not a single Welcome message with something extra added in the case of a Direct Add? Seems redundant and probably adds to my friends' annoyance.
We seem to be going round in circles and repeating your point of view here is not going to get you anywhere.? I suggest you read Duane's post ( #44070) again. Regards Andy
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
The problem is the Direct Add message, not the Welcome Message.
Altering?the Welcome message might indeed help to solve the problem. However, the?two messages appear to be sent out at the same time if a direct add is done and so the user is 50% likely to see the Direct Add message first. First impressions are lasting ones.
I don't see why two separate messages have to be sent. Why not a single Welcome message with something extra added in the case of a Direct Add? Seems redundant and probably adds to my friends' annoyance.
-P.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 11:52?PM W David Samuelsen < sammyslc@...> wrote: What is wrong with including your preferred message in the WELCOME message when one subscribes to join?
I never had anyone turned off by welcome messages containing nuanced warnings.
David Samuelsen, owner of several lists.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 8:18?PM Arno Martens < snetram@...> wrote: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:43:52 -0400, "Peter S. Shenkin" <shenkin@...>,? wrote:
? ? ? ? >It does not compromise legality.
Have you received a legal written opinion about that?
? ? ? ? >For the third or fourth time in this discussion, I will say that the
? ? ? ? >legally required material can be stated concisely in a footer that
? ? ? ? >would always be present.
? ? ? ? >That would permit the narrative to be expressed in the words of the
? ? ? ? >Owner.
Mark Fletcher *is* the owner.
Arno
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
What is wrong with including your preferred message in the WELCOME message when one subscribes to join?
I never had anyone turned off by welcome messages containing nuanced warnings.
David Samuelsen, owner of several lists.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 8:18?PM Arno Martens < snetram@...> wrote: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:43:52 -0400, "Peter S. Shenkin" <shenkin@...>,? wrote:
? ? ? ? >It does not compromise legality.
Have you received a legal written opinion about that?
? ? ? ? >For the third or fourth time in this discussion, I will say that the
? ? ? ? >legally required material can be stated concisely in a footer that
? ? ? ? >would always be present.
? ? ? ? >That would permit the narrative to be expressed in the words of the
? ? ? ? >Owner.
Mark Fletcher *is* the owner.
Arno
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
The group owner, obviously, is what I was referring to. C'est moi, in this case.
?
-P.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:18?PM Arno Martens < snetram@...> wrote:
[excess quote trimmed by moderator]
? ? ? ? >That would permit the narrative to be expressed in the words of the
? ? ? ? >Owner.
Mark Fletcher *is* the owner.
Arno
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
Tue, 13 Jun 2023 17:43:52 -0400, "Peter S. Shenkin" <shenkin@...>, wrote:
>It does not compromise legality.
Have you received a legal written opinion about that?
>For the third or fourth time in this discussion, I will say that the
>legally required material can be stated concisely in a footer that
>would always be present.
>That would permit the narrative to be expressed in the words of the
>Owner.
Mark Fletcher *is* the owner.
Arno
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
Peter, I've never had anyone tell me that the boilerplate text turned them away from the group, so I can't say it would help me. It wouldn't hurt my groups, so my only concern would be if it can't be moved due to legal reasons. Consider that people tend to dismiss reading introductions like that, or of just about any kind. How many just click "I agree" to the conditions and privacy notice when signing up for something like this, without reading any of it? If they read any of it, it will be the first paragraph or two. Donald On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:04:38 -0400, "Peter S. Shenkin" <shenkin@...> wrote: I agree that it might not pass the "who cares" test. So far, I'm the only one who cares! ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: /g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng/g/CHIRP
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
I agree that it might not pass the "who cares" test. So far, I'm the only one who cares!
?
-P.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 6:51?PM Donald Hellen < donhellen@...> wrote:
I don't see it changing. It has to meet the standards of the EU as well as other
jurisdictions. They may actually require the legal stuff first. If that's the
case, it won't be changed.
To suggest this change, you need to bring this up in the Beta group. It also has
to pass the "who cares?" test, in other words, it has to benefit a large number
of groups without adverse impact to other groups, and also must still meet
international legal requirements. Bring it up in Beta and see where it goes.
Donald
[Excess quote trimmed by moderator]
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
I don't see it changing. It has to meet the standards of the EU as well as other jurisdictions. They may actually require the legal stuff first. If that's the case, it won't be changed. To suggest this change, you need to bring this up in the Beta group. It also has to pass the "who cares?" test, in other words, it has to benefit a large number of groups without adverse impact to other groups, and also must still meet international legal requirements. Bring it up in Beta and see where it goes. Donald On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:47:29 -0700, "Andy Wedge" <andy_wedge@...> wrote: That may be your view but I'm guessing, as has also been stated before, that the current format has been reviewed by legal professionals which is why it is how it is. ---------------------------------------------------- Some ham radio groups you may be interested in: /g/ICOM /g/Ham-Antennas/g/HamRadioHelp /g/Baofeng/g/CHIRP
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:44 PM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
It does not compromise legality.?
?
For the third or fourth time in this discussion, I will say that the legally required material can be stated concisely in a footer that would always be present.
That may be your view but I'm guessing, as has also been stated before, that the current format has been reviewed by legal professionals which is why it is how it is. Regards Andy
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
It does not compromise legality.?
For the third or fourth time in this discussion, I will say that the legally required material can be stated concisely in a footer that would always be present.
That would permit the narrative to be expressed in the words of the Owner.
-P.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 5:40?PM Chris Jones via <chrisjones12= [email protected]> wrote: On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:37 PM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
But I don't see why official?wording is needed at all, just as long as the required information is present. And as I said, all the officially required boilerplate could concisely be put in a required footer and the user's desired message could then replace the official text entirely.
It is needed because Mark Fletcher (who owns Groups.io) recognises that he has a legal responsibility to ensure that his Company observes the law; what you are asking for effectively strips him and Groups.io of that responsibility and delegates it to individual group owners who may (or may not) include that which is legally required into some messages. In his position I don 't think I would countenance any such delegation. What might or would happen if a group owner failed to incorporate material that is legally required??
Furthermore the "officially required boilerplate" is probably already as concise as the company's legal advisers will allow it to be, and burying it in a footer is simply not appropriate; "small print" has an unhappy reputation and putting it into a footer would effectively reduce it to the status of small print.?
I am very much with Greg D when he writes?I expect it's a matter of legal risk avoidance.? Depending on jurisdiction, Groups.io could be held responsible for the legal text, which they cannot control unless they force its inclusion.
Chris.?
|
Re: Allow groups.io messages to be more personal
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 08:37 PM, Peter S. Shenkin wrote:
But I don't see why official?wording is needed at all, just as long as the required information is present. And as I said, all the officially required boilerplate could concisely be put in a required footer and the user's desired message could then replace the official text entirely.
It is needed because Mark Fletcher (who owns Groups.io) recognises that he has a legal responsibility to ensure that his Company observes the law; what you are asking for effectively strips him and Groups.io of that responsibility and delegates it to individual group owners who may (or may not) include that which is legally required into some messages. In his position I don 't think I would countenance any such delegation. What might or would happen if a group owner failed to incorporate material that is legally required?? Furthermore the "officially required boilerplate" is probably already as concise as the company's legal advisers will allow it to be, and burying it in a footer is simply not appropriate; "small print" has an unhappy reputation and putting it into a footer would effectively reduce it to the status of small print.? I am very much with Greg D when he writes? I expect it's a matter of legal risk avoidance.? Depending on jurisdiction, Groups.io could be held responsible for the legal text, which they cannot control unless they force its inclusion.Chris.?
|
Christos Psarras
Frances
Peter S. Shenkin
Duane
Andy Wedge