开云体育

Hi John,

According to the Create Subgroup page, "After you create the subgroup, your parent group will now be?[email protected]...". What's not clearly stated (imho) is whether or not the [email protected] will still work or not.

It will, but in messages from your group the To address will reflect the new form. Likewise whenever the group's address is shown on site, or in a notification email.

The group's web address changes in an analogous fashion, but for that too the old form will continue to work for the primary group.

Shal



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

It would seem logical to refer to the group by its URL rather than its
posting address,

Yes, and Mark was called on this recently in beta. I think it was the formatted Digest where the text of a link was the group's posting address but the URL under it was its home page. It did the "right" thing, but some felt it was confusing.

Agreed, needless ambiguity is definitely confusing.

unless a group permits non-subscribers to post, clicking on the
posting address shouldn’t take anyone to the group website…

In the invitation those were not links, so they wouldn't take one anywhere.

Unless your email interface linkified them (some interfaces will recognize an email address in a message body and make it clickable), but that would generate a message to that address, not take you to any site.

Thunderbird will linkify email addresses, but only in plain-text message bodies, Gmail doesn't. Possibly your email interface does in both plain text and formatted message bodies.

| You have been invited by <me> to join the Groups.io group <groupname>@groups.io.
Outlook.com did make <groupname>@groups.io into a clickable link for /g/<groupname>
Again why be confusing by needlessly mislabeling an address (a URL as an email address)?

... I would think it is more likely that a new subscribe would rather
go to the group upon joining rather than immediately sending a message
to the group.

True, which is why the only link in the invitation itself is the acceptance link. Which only takes you to the site (probably to your subscription page in the group, but I don't remember for certain);

It actually took me to the group webpage where I was already signed in with a different email address

it does not also open a new message either on site or in your email interface..

Yes, it didn’t, but it looked like it should.

Groups.io should strive to be clear and simple to understand and use.
It is misguided laziness to forsake simple corrections because 'those in the know’ understand that mislabeled items don’t mean what they look like. At best that generates confusion the rest of us have to deal with.

I've successfully added several cell phone email addresses to GroupsIO for those members who wish to receive their GroupsIO messages as texts not emails... all except for one person.?

The first two addresses?below (for the same android phone served by ting.com via t-mobile) successfully receive texts sent as emails from my regular email account, outside of GroupsIO:

?

Good address: <970310xxxx@...>

Good address: <+1970310xxxx@...>
Bad address: <970310xxxx@...> does not work from regular email

?

But when I enter the good @tmomail.net or the @mailmymobile.net addresses??-- or any permutation of them -- as an invitation in GroupsIO, I get the results below. Why does GroupsIO fail to communicate with either of these addresses that work fine outside GroupsIO? How can I get this person's phone email address invited as a member?

?

?

Hi!

Loving groups.io so far. I'm interested in the subgroups functionality, but I'd like some confirmation before taking the plunge and creating my first.

According to the Create Subgroup page, "After you create the subgroup, your parent group will now be?main@<group>.groups.io...". What's not clearly stated (imho) is whether or not the <group>@groups.io will still work or not. Our group has been in use for a few months now and I'd hate to have to re-educate everyone to use a new address just after migrating from Yahoo to groups.io.

So, does <group>@groups.io work after creating a subgroup, or does that address no longer function?

(I actually have a domain-based alias created that points to <group>@groups.io, so I have the option of re-pointing that alias, but some users know about and use the <group>@groups.io address, so there's likely to be a few issues if that address will no longer work.)

Thanks!

- John

Michael,

If Groups.io rewrote all From addresses as if for DMARC, wouldn’t that
ensure the same and a more reliable experience for all users?

Yes, but IMO the same miserable experience.

I'm more keen on convincing mailbox providers to eschew the "reject" policy, but I know that's a lost cause. Some receiving services (such as Gmail) treat it as "advice" but will generally ignore it if the message (or the sender) otherwise seems non-spammy enough -- by whatever magic criteria Gmail uses.

Perhaps someday the ARC protocol may reach broad enough acceptance that email lists could stand-down their DMARC defense mechanisms and go back to unmodified From addresses. But I'm not holding my breath on that either.

It is more possible that ARC acceptance may become broad enough that Groups.io could narrow the defense and make it triggered by the policies of the receiving service as well as that of the sending service. Then From re-writing would penalize only the users of receiving services that won't use ARC (or other means) to overrule the sender's DMARC policy.

Shal


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

Michael,

It would seem logical to refer to the group by its URL rather than its
posting address,

Yes, and Mark was called on this recently in beta. I think it was the formatted Digest where the text of a link was the group's posting address but the URL under it was its home page. It did the "right" thing, but some felt it was confusing.

unless a group permits non-subscribers to post, clicking on the
posting address shouldn’t take anyone to the group website…

In the invitation those were not links, so they wouldn't take one anywhere.

Unless your email interface linkified them (some interfaces will recognize an email address in a message body and make it clickable), but that would generate a message to that address, not take you to any site.

Thunderbird will linkify email addresses, but only in plain-text message bodies, Gmail doesn't. Possibly your email interface does in both plain text and formatted message bodies.

... I would think it is more likely that a new subscribe would rather
go to the group upon joining rather than immediately sending a message
to the group.

True, which is why the only link in the invitation itself is the acceptance link. Which only takes you to the site (probably to your subscription page in the group, but I don't remember for certain); it does not also open a new message either on site or in your email interface..

Shal


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

| Subject: Invitation to join the <groupname>@groups.io email group
Shouldn't this be "<groupname>.groups.io"? (and again in the message body)?

Mark typically uses the group's posting address as the name of the group, so it should appear as [email protected] or <[email protected]>. That is, the angle brackets should either encompass both the name and domain, or not be present.

It would seem logical to refer to the group by its URL rather than its posting address, unless a group permits non-subscribers to post, clicking on the posting address shouldn’t take anyone to the group website… And until an Invitation were accepted one would not be a subscriber yet, unless clicking on that <posting address named group> both accepts and generates a message to the group - I would think it is more likely that a new subscribe would rather go to the group upon joining rather than immediately sending a message to the group.

however at the bottom of the Invitation there were 3 confusing and unexplained 'buttons':
"Thank you for the invite." , "Thank you for the invitation." , and "Can you please add me?"
What are these 3 unexplained 'buttons', what is the difference between them, and where do they go?

That sounds like a feature of your email interface. I know Gmail sometimes makes suggestions like that, what they do is compose a reply with the suggested text in the body, then leave it for you to complete the reply or just click Send. Possibly other services have that feature too.

Yes it was to an outlook.com email address (as I quoted in my inquiry)
| Hello <emailaddress>@outlook.com,

Thanks for the explanations.

Dale,

Turns out I had gone to the 'Access Control' panel in Yahoo Groups and
set all controls to 'off' - meaning even the moderators could not see
old messages.

Good catch.

I've updated GMF's wiki page to make note of that.
/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Transfer-from-Yahoo-Groups

Shal


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

Mark,

Shal, has it been discussed before why Mark chose this interface?

Yes. There was extensive discussion in beta at the time.

Initially the green "Reply to Group" and blue "Reply to Sender" buttons were both available, with the button reflecting the group's setting on the left. Some moderators complained that this made it far to easy for members to inadvertently click the non-preferred button, resulting in misdirected replies.

having a Private button that changes the green "Reply to Group" button
to a blue "Reply to Sender" button is less than optimal and could be
confusing to users.

Amusingly, the argument that it "could be confusing to users" was exactly what carried the day for the moderators who did not like having both buttons available at once. They felt it did not sufficiently guide the user as to which was the group's preferred reply destination.

It was probably many of those same moderators who later pushed for the option to "Remove Other Reply Options".

I tend to agree with you that the current mechanism seems like a bit overkill. I'd have preferred not introducing this "Private" modality and instead finding another way to guide the user towards the group's preference.

Shal


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

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 03:53 PM, Mark Emmer wrote:

Shal, has it been discussed before why Mark chose this interface? From the perspective of UI stability, having a Private button that changes the green "Reply to Group" button to a blue "Reply to Sender" button is less than optimal and could be confusing to users.? Why not have "Reply to Group" and "Reply to Sender" buttons in a stable interface?

I believe the intent here is to have the web interface mimic what is [supposed to] happen via email; to wit:? the group Owner sets the default reply behavior of the group and the individual subscriber has to manually override that if they want to do something else.

In email, the group default setting (see Message Policies>Reply To) sets the reply-to field in the message header of *every* outgoing group message. Compliant email clients are?supposed?to parse this and populate the message To: field accordingly whenever the user hits the "reply" button. As we have seen, actual behavior varies, depending on both the client itself and its own settings; nonetheless, the field as populated serves as a "strong suggestion" from the group Owner as to what he wants to happen.

Similarly, the web interface reflects the group setting, with the assumption that the Owner set things up this way for a reason. To override it a subscriber has to use the "greyed-out" reply button[s]; with the fervent hope that most people will use the default.

One can eliminate the "greyed-out" buttons in the online message editor entirely by clicking the "Remove Other Reply Options" in settings. This removes those same reply options from [html] email footers but still does not actually prohibit non-compliant replies via email, only those composed online.?

Going back to the original question that started this thread....

Currently, the only way to?completely enforce?"Reply to Sender" group-wide -- using both the web interface and by email -- is to create a hashtag with the "Reply Only to Sender" override set and apply that hashtag to the initial message. For any such message, attempts to send a reply back to the group by email will be rejected by groups.io.?Again: there is no group setting that will accomplish the same objective.
?
I hope this helps...and made sense.

Regards,
Bruce

Shal, has it been discussed before why Mark chose this interface? From the perspective of UI stability, having a Private button that changes the green "Reply to Group" button to a blue "Reply to Sender" button is less than optimal and could be confusing to users.? Why not have "Reply to Group" and "Reply to Sender" buttons in a stable interface?? If it hasn't been discussed, then I will make the suggestion in beta.

Mark E.

OK, I solved the problem. All the messages have now come across on a 2nd attempt.

?

Turns out I had gone to the 'Access Control' panel in Yahoo Groups and set all controls to 'off' - meaning even the moderators could not see old messages.? I was following what I thought was the process as described in a YouTube video on the topic. I made a mistake. Once I set all the access to controls to moderator only and re-did the transfer, all my messages came across!?

?

I didn't have to delete the transfer agent's subscription. I just followed your original instructions and ran the transfer again, selected messages only and our 2500ish messages came across within about 10 hours.?

?

Thanks again for helping. I really appreciate it.

?

…顿补濒别

Kathleen,

my group is set to reply to group and sender. when i want to reply to
both, i choose that option. if i want to reply only to the sender, i
choose that option.

Are you replying through the Messages section of the group, or via your email interface?

my subscribers (some of them) seem to not have the option to make the
reply private and often send replies to the group and sender when it

should only go to the sender.

Perhaps those subscribers don't notice the Private button. It is grey and off to the right.

A recent changelog entry seems like it could be related, although not exactly as you describe:

BUGFIX: Reply to Group & Sender on the web in some cases did not send
the message to the sender, only to the group.

Also, members replying by email would have an entirely different user interface, and the reply options vary among various email services and applications. In many, a reply a private reply only to the sender would require deleting the group address from the reply before sending it.

do i have the option because i'm a moderator?

The Private button should show to members as well -- unless you've checked the "Remove Other Reply Options" box just below the Reply To option.

Shal


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

Hi all,

If the changelog has seemed sparse lately, Mark is focusing on two major efforts over the next few months. One is the ability for group owners to charge subscriptions for their groups. The other is an iOS/Android app. For further detail see the posting on beta:


The last two 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.

If there's anyone here who uses the API please identify and comment on any API-related changes that would be significant to API users. I don't and wouldn't know what to comment on.

BUGFIX: Reply to Group & Sender on the web in some cases did not send
the message to the sender, only to the group.

This certainly wouldn't have been helping clarify things for people with questions about how the Reply To setting interacts with email replies.


Comments about these others are also welcome:

SYSADMIN: Increased heap memory of search nodes to hopefully stop
random crashes.
BUGFIX: Reply to sender on the web to a non-member of the group
produced an error.
CHANGE: Tweak the formatting of photo album descriptions to allow for
longer descriptions.
BUGFIX: Some Facebook posts would duplicate the first image.
CHANGE: Bolded the current page in the pagination links.
BUGFIX: Fixed a couple of broken links in the More menu on mobile.

API:
CHANGE: The /downloadarchives endpoint has been temporarily disabled
because a company was abusing it and putting too much load on the
system.
NEW: The /gettopics endpoint now works.
NEW: Additional error codes for /login API endpoint.
NEW: Added group_alias, org_id, org_domain fields to the
'subscription_plus' object.
NEW: New subscription_plus field: nice_group_name.
NEW: New /gettopics parameter: extended.

Please call out any you find significant.

Shal


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

In Gmail, this feature is called Smart Reply.? You can turn it off in the settings.
The suggested replies show up at the bottom of the email body, above the normal reply buttons?
Toby

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 08:52 AM, Pat W. wrote:

How do you delete a Database that was transferred from another group and the person who put it there is no longer a member?

The group Owner should be able to delete it as follows:? Open the database table by clicking on its name. Click on the "Edit Table Properties" button at the top of on the resulting page, then click on the red "Delete Table" button at the bottom.??

Hope this helps,
Bruce
--
The system Help is your friend.??/static/help

How do you delete a Database that was transferred from another group and the person who put it there is no longer a member?

Received from Shal Farley at 11/10/2018 03:11 AM UTC:

Jim,

The most effective solution to Gio mass bouncing problems is direct contact with the ISPs doing the bouncing by someone responsible at Gio.

It isn't as if Mark doesn't already know any of what you've said.

I don't recall any mention in this instance, but in prior incidents Mark has mentioned his contact, or attempt at contact, with various email services. Not that all of them are particularly receptive to such contact.

Yes, there are a few rogue ISPs who don't care, but the major providers of Internet access to the masses don't fall into that category. If the right people are reached the blocks should get lifted.

Jim H

Jim,

The most effective solution to Gio mass bouncing problems is direct
contact with the ISPs doing the bouncing by someone responsible at
Gio.

It isn't as if Mark doesn't already know any of what you've said.

I don't recall any mention in this instance, but in prior incidents Mark has mentioned his contact, or attempt at contact, with various email services. Not that all of them are particularly receptive to such contact.

Shal


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