开云体育

I took over ownership of a group that was on Yahoo. The group did not permit attachments, but I felt it wise to allow attachments - the Yahoo group owner wants me to retain ownership. There are two very different views held quite strongly by some members.

1. Attachments should not be permitted - as was the case when it was Yahoo. Someone has threatened to leave over this.
2. Attachments should be permitted - which is what I have currently put.

Someone sent several 10's of MB of photos on a post, and has caused some people on slow networks a LOT of problems. One person claims it took him three days to determine why his email had stopped, when in fact it was the large files from groups.io.

Now I know users can turn off attachments, but I'm wondering if it possible for me to enable them for the group, but disable them for each member unless they change that themselves.

It seems some people are being caught unaware of this. The used to be member of a group where they received no attachments, but now their inbox is filled up with photos.?

Dave

What I did with my group was to choose the options whereby photos are resized to 488 by 488. ?This works well for both sending out large emails to subscribers and for keeping usage down for the freemium option.

There are four places in settings where you can resize attachments.

Another choice is that rather than set a group-wide policy, members who don't want large attachments can set their own private policy.?

Under Subscription/Membership/Advanced Preferences, a member can select maximum attachment size: 0 (no attachments, 100KB, 500KB, 5MB, or Unlimited). Below the choice GIO states: "For attachments larger than this size, links to retrieve them will be provided instead."

Mark E.

What I did with my group was to choose the options whereby photos are resized to 488 by 488. ?This works well for both sending out large emails to subscribers and for keeping usage down for the freemium option.

There are four places in settings where you can resize attachments.

[excess quote trimmed by moderator]

Dave,

Now I know users can turn off attachments, but I'm wondering if it
possible for me to enable them for the group, but disable them for
each member unless they change that themselves.

In the Default Sub Settings tab of your group's Settings page you can change the default Max Attachment Size from Unlimited to None, or something in between. That won't help your current members, it only changes the default for members who join in the future.

For current members you (or they, as Mark suggested) can change the setting in their Subscription, but unfortunately there's no bulk way for you to do it - you'd have to open each member's subscription page one by one.

And as vijaybhuchar suggested, you can set a group-wide resizing of emailed photos. That's under Photos in the Features section of your group's settings. Photos taken straight from cameras tend to be huge these days, so even picking a 1024x1024 limit can dramatically reduce the size of the attached photos.

Shal


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

On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 09:07 PM, Dr. David Kirkby from Kirkby Microwave Ltd wrote:

Now I know users can turn off attachments, but I'm wondering if it possible for me to enable them for the group, but disable them for each member unless they change that themselves.

As Shal noted, you can set up a new-subscription default in the Default Sub Settings.

To disable attachments on behalf of individual members (like the one who wants to quit), open Admin>Members and click on that member's name, and then scroll down and click on the Advanced Preferences and change the Max Attachment Size to zero.

Note that in doing so, (s)he will instead receive a hyperlink to the attachment. If the hyperlink is also objectionable, the only way to disable that is to disable attachments for the whole group.

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

A general word on attachment policy. Why would anyone want to ban attachments?

Attachments are dangerous because they? are a favorite tool of criminal hackers for infecting computer systems. They can be used in several ways. An old, but still used, method is to embed code known as macros into Microsoft Word documents. Macros execute when a Word doc (or docx) is opened. They are intended to do useful things like adjust dates to reflect the current date, but they can also do nasty things like download viruses and malware. For example, a Word macro could start a series of events that turns your computer into a device for forwarding spam under the control of a master criminal in a remote country.

Similar things can be done with .zip files and some image files.

There are ways to protect yourself from attachments, but they require a little technical sophistication that not everyone has.

Email reflector services like groups.io are particularly attractive to criminals because sending out a single attachment to a group will be forwarded to many recipients. In my opinion, alternatives like embedded links are slightly safer because they leave a clearer trail back to the origin of the content, but those trails can also be obscured and the damage from following a malicious link can easily be as bad as that from a malicious attachment. Embedded links also only transfer data when they are clicked so they can be more resource friendly.

I am not saying that attachments should always be banned, but do think your policy through carefully. Large groups with many lurking and unknown members should be particularly careful. That applies to more than just attachment policy.
Best, Marv

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

Received from Marv Waschke at 8/31/2018 05:07 PM UTC:

A general word on attachment policy. Why would anyone want to ban attachments?

Attachments are dangerous because they are a favorite tool of criminal hackers for infecting computer systems.

In addition to criminals deliberately trying to infect us, we have the innocent, unsuspecting (and ignorant) subscribers who become infected via that cute "fill in the blank" forwarded by "Aunt Sally"... who runs every attachment and clicks every link that anyone sends her.

As with some other things in life, it's not just what's in front of us... it's ALL the things received and possibly clicked on by the person who sent the ONE thing that's in front of us.

Jim H