¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. GroupManagersForum
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
new subscriber cannot send message to group

 

I recently transferred a group from Yahoo to groups.io. The transfer went well. Since then I have added one new subscriber. He was accepted. When he tries to post, i.e send a message to the group he receives?¡°groups.io rejected your message¡±.? I have set his profile for the groups default, everyone can post, and to allow him to post. Neither setting lets him send. Am I missing something I should set to allow him to send? No one else has yet complained about this limitation. Thanks for you help.
Re: photos and albums

Bill Todd
 

already done that after i wrote on forum shal but i have a feeling i won't get a reply before the deadline i was given
Re: photos and albums

 

Bill,

... i got a storage limit warning today and i went to my groups to
see what the problem was and ive found out that for some reason every
photo have been duplicated ...
... i need to delete the duplicates and having to do this 1 at a time
is gonna take years.

problem 2 the warning states that if i don't get this problem sorted
out by 1st aug the first photos will get deleted.
i really need help with this as i don't want to loose any of my
photos because of a self duplicating problem with the website.
I suggest writing to [email protected] to see if they can systematically remove the duplicates. And figure out why that happened.

Shal
Re: photos and albums

Bill Todd
 

hi duane
got a problem with the photos in my groups
now for some reason i got a storage limit warning today and i went to my groups to see what the problem was and ive found out that for some reason every photo have been duplicated so thats the reason for the warning i got but i need to delete the duplicates and having to do this 1 at a time is gonna take years.
problem 2 the warning states that if i don't get this problem sorted out by 1st aug the first photos will get deleted.
i really need help with this as i don't want to loose any of my photos because of a self duplicating problem with the website.
so either we need a bulk delete a.s.a.p before aug 1st or a bulk download option so i can change the photo albums or more time than just 6 days to sort out over 3000 photos
question on list of members

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hello everyone

I am a moderator of a group and a owner of a couple of groups .

For one of the groups that I moderate I can not access members who I need to rremove.

When I select the member(s) and enter, I am tttaken to the page of all my groups instead of giving me the option to remove .when I go tocopy and paste the e mail of the member I am taken to where there is a action dialog but the only option given is ¡°send a message¡± and I need to remove .

On the Beta group someone mentioned it was a bug

Can I please have help on this topic?

Thanks

Sugar

?

¡°Wait for God, even if the night seems dark. He will give you everything you need when you need it.¡±

- Peter Wallace

~Sugar Lopez

?

?
Re: Calendar - Non Group Members Able To View #calendar

 

Great Shai,

'Simples' when you know (where) (;>)

Much appreciated and thanks

Jack(;>J
Re: Calendar - Non Group Members Able To View #calendar

 

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
Calendar - Non Group Members Able To View #calendar

 

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
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

 

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.

That is so amusing on so many levels.? Thanks for sharing that Shal.? It actually made me :-)

- ?LeeAnne,

ECIR Archivist,?Newmarket, Ontario

March/2004

??

?
??
Quote of the moment: The human spirit must prevail over technology. - Albert Einstein

--
-LeeAnne

?Archivist
Re: reply only to member, not the entire group & new member applications

J_Catlady
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

In settings, set your group to 'reply to individual' instead of 'reply to group,' which is the default.?

Send your questionnaire via the 'pending subscription' notice. Go to settings --> member notices. The pending member has to return it via email. It will go to the group owner address.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Ruth Levi <ruthlevi@...> wrote:

is it possible to set the ¡°reply¡± feature to only send the reply to the person who sent the email, rather than the reply going back nto the group, as a new post? our list does not function as an interactive one. people can only post their queries, no replies r seen by the other members. our group is 15k strong, so this is most efficient for us. alternatively, can i have the ¡°reply¡± button deleted from our emails?

?

when new members apply, i always had yahoogroups send the potential new member an automatic questionnaire. how can i accomplish that n IO?

?

thanks!

?

ruthie levi

ruthlevi@...

?
reply only to member, not the entire group & new member applications

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

is it possible to set the ¡°reply¡± feature to only send the reply to the person who sent the email, rather than the reply going back nto the group, as a new post? our list does not function as an interactive one. people can only post their queries, no replies r seen by the other members. our group is 15k strong, so this is most efficient for us. alternatively, can i have the ¡°reply¡± button deleted from our emails?

?

when new members apply, i always had yahoogroups send the potential new member an automatic questionnaire. how can i accomplish that n IO?

?

thanks!

?

ruthie levi

ruthlevi@...

?
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

 

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
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

J_Catlady
 

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
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

jkm
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Stanhopi, asked
but what does 'fig-leaf' in the above-quoted text mean.?
Catlady replied,
It means to hide the email address by removing everything after the "at" sign and substituting ellipses¡­.only people reading via email will see the entire email address. If you read this message on the web¡­.There was a long, hard debate on the beta group nearly a year ago about this ¡°feature. 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
?
Thank youl, both for the question (which I, too, was about to ask it) and ?for the answer. ?Thank you, Paul and Shal, for more follow-up. Two comments:
?
(1) ?I"Fig-leafed¡± is a good (and witty) fit for its purpose, but not easy to guess if you don¡¯t already know that ?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. ?But having seen nothing about munging senders¡¯ addresses in any descriptions or instructions for using , and having never encountered this problem elsewhere, I had vaguely assumed the usual: ?that something gone wrong at my end that I needed to figure out and fix. ?Catlady changed my perspective. I now strongly suspect ?that, as more and more non-techhi refugees (like myself) flee from from Y!Groups to , ?they will need more by way of basic, definitions and simply and clearly written comprehensive, instructions than its hitherto largely tech-sophistocated membership has required. ?(That kind of instruction was a feature in which Yahoo excelled, and I am already nostalgic for it.) 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.?

(2) More immediately, I think a group option to remove the fig-leaf is absolutely necessary, and I very much hope that Mark will quickly implement it. ?Why? On the one hand, I really appreciate Shal¡¯s comment about the fig leaf¡¯s importance in protecting members of open groups from exploitation. But in ?my own group, which is both unlisted and restricted, figleafing really handicaps its web-only members in achieving the group's principal purpose, which is to increase and improve networking both on-list and off, among its members. Advice please: ?should I send these thoughts to the Beta group (and if so how- I am still learning my way around)? or directly to Mark (and if so, how?) or both? (or neither!)?

J
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

J_Catlady
 

Shal,
I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. They're available *because* they're permanent.:)
J
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

 

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
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

J_Catlady
 

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
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

 

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
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf' . . .

 

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.
==
Re: Pleasse define the term 'fig-leaf'¨C was: Groups.io site updates #changelog

 

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
47081 - 47100 of 49141