Re: Can we limit inbound attachment size?
Is there a way to limit the size of attachment that a member can post
to the group?
Isn't a photo an attachment? Does Groups.io always differentiate between photo files, (jpg, etc.) and non photo files so that it can selectively limit photos if the appropriate box is checked in the group's configurfation? Also, don't most email servers limit max content size?? I think gmail maxs you out if your message's total size is 10megabytes. -- Bob Bellizzi
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation
|
Re: Can we limit inbound attachment size?
Thanks,? Shal and Dano, for your comments.
We've already throttled back the photo sizes to 488x488 for emails, and 1024 for other image uploads. Our focus is now on managing other kinds of document attachments.
I would support the option to set a hard limit, which would simply strip the attachment or bounce the message back to sender. Giving the go/no-go option to a Moderator is a kinder, gentler approach, but it does add more admin work for us managers. I also think there's good precedent from every email provider out there to reject messages with an attachment that's just too big.
Best,
Jim
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote: Jim,
> Is there a way to limit the size of attachment that a member can post
> to the group?
There is for photos, sort-of, but not for attachments. That's probably because for photos the limit is expressed in pixel dimensions and photos over the limit can be automatically resized to fit. With file attachments the only options would be to strip them or bounce the message.
Or... force the message to the pending queue and defer the choice of stripping, rejecting, or accepting them to the moderator's case-by-case judgment. So I guess those weren't the only options.
The only objection I can see to implementing this feature would be an argument against the added complexity. But that generally hasn't been stopping Mark from implementing good ideas.
Shal
|
Re: Can we limit inbound attachment size?
Jim, Is there a way to limit the size of attachment that a member can post
to the group? There is for photos, sort-of, but not for attachments. That's probably because for photos the limit is expressed in pixel dimensions and photos over the limit can be automatically resized to fit. With file attachments the only options would be to strip them or bounce the message. Or... force the message to the pending queue and defer the choice of stripping, rejecting, or accepting them to the moderator's case-by-case judgment. So I guess those weren't the only options. The only objection I can see to implementing this feature would be an argument against the added complexity. But that generally hasn't been stopping Mark from implementing good ideas. Shal
|
Re: Can we limit inbound attachment size?
> We're just getting our group started. There is some
>?discussion about attachments. I see we can set a group
>?policy for the maximum size of attachments that a member
>?will receive by email, which individual members can choose
>?to override. Is there a way to limit the size of attachment
>?that a member can post to the group?
?
Yes, there are several controls you can set. Under Administration > Settings, under the first 'Settings' button, scroll way down to "Photos". You can set who can view and upload to the group photos section.
?
You can also set a 'Max Size In Photos Section' which will automagically resize photos uploaded to the photos section that are larger than a specific size.
?
You can also set 'Max Size In Email' which automagically resizes photos to below a set size for photos sent in emails.
?
|
Can we limit inbound attachment size?
We're just getting our group started. There is some discussion about attachments. I see we can set a group policy for the maximum size of attachments that a member will receive by email, which individual members can choose to override. Is there a way to limit the size of attachment that a member can post to the group? We'd like to have more control over attachment sizes so we don't run up our storage usage and so we don't have members receiving mega-messages because they unwittingly set their personal attachment size limit to unlimited.
Thanks,
Jim
|
Re: Pricing Too High, Storage Too Low, for groups.io
Exactly. Spot on.
Gin
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:19 am, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm hopeful that Mark can set a price for extra storage that covers its direct and indirect costs, with money left over to contribute to the support of free (basic plan) services and Groups.io as a whole.
|
On 26 Oct 2017 at 12:57, J_Catlady wrote:
> I am very strongly against an Unlike button.
I am for an unlike or dislike button.
> All of the better media either never had one or have gotten rid of it
> by now, for what I think are obvious reasons.
Facebook, better media?? That's your subjective judgment.
Here's a list of the news organizations that allow up/downvoting, via
Disqus:
--
Jim
Poston@...
<<??????????? Sign outside Mustang Ranch:? On Vacation. Beat it.???????????? >>
??
|
On 26 Oct 2017 at 18:31, Drew AF2Z wrote: Perhaps group owners could have an option to disable the Unlike button if
they don't think it fits the character of their group. Or disable the Like
button for that matter... Like or both ;-) A less charged term could also be used: Yea/Nay? Pro/Con? Or just Thumbs
Up and Thumbs Down... Or, as at Reddit: upvote/downvote -- Jim Poston@... << See ya! >>
|
On 26 Oct 2017 at 11:51, J_Catlady wrote: Can someone name some platforms (besides the odious, troll-ridden
craigslist forums) that have an unlike as well as a like button? Facebook
got rid of it a long time ago. The news outlets don't have it. Where does
this feature exist, currently?? I don't know where they all are, but many news sites have it. ABC News, San Jose Mercury News, and the Las Vegas Sun are examples. Disqus is widely used by newpapers and allows downvoting. Reddit, StackExchange, Imgur are examples of huge discussion platforms that allow downvoting. My users don't use the Like button much, but since we have it, I'd like to see a Dislike or Unlike button as well. -- Jim Poston@... << Cannibals don't eat clowns - they taste funny >>
|
Re: Pricing Too High, Storage Too Low, for groups.io
BTW, notice I Liked your last post. Possibly it is operating in the black. But I'll wager he doesn't include his labor, not to mention a wage commensurate with the level of his capabilities and responsibility has has assumed. I totally agree with you and Ginny's proposal.? I am not rich nor is our nonprofit loaded with cash.? We consider our group a necessary outreach and, as I told Mark, we would be willing to pay the original $30 per month for premium membership. I would agree to pay more on an incremental agreement for more storage as needed that would downsize if we reduced our requirements by offloading some stuff. BTW, I don't think you can have a domain and website less than $10 per month Finally, if members really value a group they would pony up.? At least some would. -- Bob Bellizzi
The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation
|
Perhaps group owners could have an option to disable the Unlike button if they don't think it fits the character of their group. Or disable the Like button for that matter... A less charged term could also be used: Yea/Nay? Pro/Con? Or just Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down... Drew On 10/26/17 05:14, J_Catlady wrote: There is no unlike button in many media for the simple reason that it can get nasty. I would not want an unlike button in groups.io.
Sent from my iPhone [excess quotes trimmed by moderator]
|
J,
I think it was Shal who posted the link explaining why even Facebook eliminated it.
I don't recall. In any case Facebook has moved on to offering icons to express one's reaction:  They to are not anonymous. You can hover on them to see who has clicked which. Shal
|
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 02:05 pm, Duane wrote:
I don't think that has, or should have, anything to do with what may be on Groups.io
And I think it should. My point is that the civilized sites eliminated dislikes long ago, and for good reason. I think it was Shal who posted the link explaining why even Facebook eliminated it. ? -- J
|
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 01:55 pm, Arno Martens wrote:
I am against saying NO without giving a reason.
IMO non-anonymous dislikes would create even more hostility than anonymous ones. I'm with Arno on this. ? -- J
|
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:51 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
Can someone name some platforms (besides the odious, troll-ridden craigslist
forums) that have an unlike as well as a like button
I don't think that has, or should have, anything to do with what may be on Groups.io This is a whole new concept in a groups site, so shouldn't be limited by what is or isn't present elsewhere. If Mark limited this site to what was previously available, there would have been no reason to start it. Duane
|
Thank you, Shal,
The 'anonymous' was added as an after thought just before sending.
I am against saying NO without giving a reason.
Better still, offer an alternative.
Arno
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Arno,
Just being an anonymous naysayer does not further any cause. Likes are not anonymous in Groups.io - you can click on a link to see a
list of who liked the post. I would expect that unlikes would not be
anonymous either.
I don't know if that affects your evaluation of the proposed unlike
feature, but it may tend to reduce the willy-nilly use of unlike.
Shal
|
Cathy, I am clicking on the calender and nothing is showing up. If you are not currently logged in to the site you cannot add entries to a group's calender even if you can see it (calendars can be publicly viewable). If you are not an owner/mod of the group it is possible that the group's calendar setting does not allow members to create events. The settings are: o Public can view, Subscribers can view and edit o Subscribers can view and edit o Public and subscribers can view, moderators can edit o Subscribers can view, moderators can edit o Subscribers cannot view, moderators can edit o Calendar is disabled Otherwise I can't think of a reason that clicking in the calendar wouldn't bring up the page to create or edit an event. Shal
|
Arno, Just being an anonymous naysayer does not further any cause. Likes are not anonymous in Groups.io - you can click on a link to see a list of who liked the post. I would expect that unlikes would not be anonymous either. I don't know if that affects your evaluation of the proposed unlike feature, but it may tend to reduce the willy-nilly use of unlike. Shal
|
I think a better venue for this conversation/debate would be the beta group, so that Mark can see the responses. I am very strongly against an Unlike button. All of the better media either never had one or have gotten rid of it by now, for what I think are obvious reasons.
--
J
|
I feel an "Unlike" option should not be there. I don't think posts should be treated as polls. If one disagrees with an idea, one should post and reply why ones thoughts are different. Just being an anonymous naysayer does not further any cause. -- Cheers, Arno Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:37:27 -0400, "Drew AF2Z" <pubx1@...>, wrote: Actually, it would be quite useful to have an unlike button. Why only a
thumbs up? There should be a thumbs down also.
Clicking thumbs down would cancel one thumbs up. Every post would be a
poll, with the final tally registering a democratic judgement yay or
nay. This would be a little more participatory for people who don't want
to post a negative comment but would nevertheless like to register an
opinion a little stronger than the only current alternative, namely to
ignore.
Drew [excess quotes trimmed by moderator]
|
Shal Farley
D R Stinson
Jim Poston
Duane