At present if a Member or their Mail Service Provider marks a message as “spam” then it is quite possible for that member to be summarily deleted from the Group that sent out the message. This is dependant on whether (or not) Groups.io operates a Feedback Loop with the MSP in question.

?

A different option might be to change the member’s mail delivery to “no mail” so that their access to messages can only be achieved via the web page of the Group in question. This action would be accompanied by a warning email sent out by Groups.io in much the same way as one is now advising the person of their membership being deleted. If nothing else it would mean that members would not find themselves completely cut adrift from a Group. Thedre would be nothing to prevent the member in question reselecting their email delivery option.

?

It is not known at this time how easily this change could be implemented by Groups.io

Depending on the outcome of this poll a #Suggestion will be placed on the beta group.

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

I don't have any of my groups set for "no mail". That means that the owner cannot even "special message" them with the rest of the group.

Shal's might be a better strategy.

Frances

Sorry, another email!
I can't choose 1 or 2. I am not sure that your fix works for me and it is clear that some groups are having members cut off.

Interestingly, I am seeing that only occasionally in our travel group of over 1100 members. It doesn't happen at all in my small groups.

Would changing someone to "no mail" mean that my group preferences are changed to allow "no mail"?

Frances

Chris,

1. Prefer Member's delivery to be changed to "No Mail" with web access
still available; Membership Retained
2. Prefer to leave things as they are; Membership Deleted

Of course this question may be moot, as Mark has somewhat clarified his position on this. In part he says:

"- Having a 'forcing function' that gets people to train spam filters to
not mark Groups.io email as spam hopefully decreases the future
likelihood of emails being marked as spam"


I read that as hinting that "dismemberment" is in part a deliberately severe response, in service of the greater good.

To pitch the idea back in beta I really think the only rational option to (2) is to propose a separate subscription status. Call it "Reported" or something appropriate as a parallel to "Bounced".

But the easier you make it for the member to reset the status the weaker it will be as a "forcing function". And for that reason I wouldn't propose to allow a group moderator to reset it; at best a moderator should be able to send a notice to the member about it.

Shal


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

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 05:15 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

Of course this question may be moot, as Mark has somewhat clarified his position on this. In part he says:

"- Having a 'forcing function' that gets people to train spam filters to
not mark Groups.io email as spam hopefully decreases the future
likelihood of emails being marked as spam"

I can see the rationale behind this. However, I find myself wondering about "training spam filters"; precisely what does it mean?

My ISP is BT (I'm in the UK) although I normally use Outlook as my email client. When we first migrated to Groups.io I found that quite a few messages from Groups.io were being diverted by BT (or whoever!) having marked them as spam, so unless I went looking for them they were invisible. My immediate workaround was to switch all spam filtering off - obviously not without risk but at the moment the result is manageable. I had a delve around earlier today and there is a setting in the BT email system for designating ":groups.io" emails as not being spam. However, I also have a Yahoo mail account only because it was unavoidable as a Yahoo Group member (several of them) & moderator (of one). Try as I might I cannot find a corresponding means of defining safe senders; yes I can mark individual emails as "not spam" but how many times would I have to do that for Yahoo to "learn" that @groups.io messages were safe? Would it ever actually learn that?

Is Yahoo the exception, with ALL other mail providers allowing specified senders to be marked as being safe? Is it too easy to assume that individual members will be able to know where to look, and be bothered (& have the confidence!) to go and do it? I know that members have to take care of the majority of their own on - line welfare, up to a point anyway. It is perhaps too easy to assume that they do know how to "train" their mail provider, assuming that the provider actually makes proper provision for it; as stated above I am not entirely convinced that Yahoo (for example) does. Expecting members to have to mark numerous messages as "not spam" in the hope that their provider might eventually see the light might just be expecting too much. With such a proliferation of Mail Providers it is almost certainly too simple to expect there to be a "one size fits all" instruction to members.

There is probably no "best" solution to all this. just a "least worst" one.

Regards,

Chris

Mark, BT uses Yahoo as it's mail delivery partner, that is why I never asked my members with Yahoo mail addresses to choose another mail provider.?
''?It is perhaps too easy to assume that they do know how to "train" their mail provider, assuming that the provider actually makes proper provision for it; as stated above I am not entirely convinced that Yahoo (for example) does''
I have Yahoo mail and found several Groups.io mails in the spam folder the first week in February, ticked them and selected '' Not Spam'' at which point they were transferred to the Inbox, since then no other Groups.io mails have shown up in my spam folder folder. I should add I don't have a mail handler on my computer and deal with mail at server level.

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 05:01 am, maggie cooper wrote:

BT uses Yahoo as it's mail delivery partner, that is why I never asked my members with Yahoo mail addresses to choose another mail provider.

Sorry; not universally true. It started to split away from Yahoo a few years ago, and then stopped for some reason, leaving some on a Yahoo - provided service and others not. I am one of the "nots".

See

Regards,

Chris

I think Mark is right. The problem will not diminish, and could get worse, if members are not forced to adjust their spam filters to allow for emails from the groups. It's harsh medicine, but as long as spam filters remain as unsophisticated as they are now, email will remain vulnerable to spamming. Spam filters could be much more sophisticated than they are now. Self-learning systems are not quite baked, IMHO, but they are getting better every day and they are well suited to discerning spam filters.

The danger is that email may decline as a common communication method. In software development, for example, there has been a mass movement away from using email for open group communication because spam is too much of a bother. This is unfortunate because the alternatives, mostly messaging systems like Slack, are good for conversation, but not so good for the kind of interaction that occurs in many groups.io groups in which the exchange is of short essays rather than conversation.

Why isn't Oath: paying attention to the chaos in Yahoo Groups? Perhaps because they perceive that email groups are dying. Spam issues are one cause for decline. I think Mark is right to fight it with strong medicine.
Best, Marv
And Happy Easter!

I hate to get into this conversation, but here's my two cents: whatever groups.io does about this, it's barely even a slap on the wrist if it lets the member right back in again, which it does. It's like going through the motions. In fact, in my group if I've seen that it's happened, I just direct-add the person back in, since we're a premium group with that capability. I'm not saying do it or don't do it. I just don't see it having much value. But maybe I don't have a thorough grasp of the situation.
--
J

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:26 am, Marv Waschke wrote:

The danger is that email may decline as a common communication method.

For some specialised applications, possibly; for "general" use then highly improbable IMHO.

You also queried Oath's apparent indifference to "the chaos in Yahoo Groups". There have been odd rumours for years suggesting that Yahoo was probably hoping that groups would simply "go away", and of course that is exactly what has happened, courtesy of Groups.io! Oath may also take the view that there are more important matters to deal with than "groups".

For myself I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if for some reason "groups by email" were suddenly disabled; the Groups.io web interface is just so much better than Yahoo's ever was; much faster responding and generally much more user - friendly, to the point where my personal choice is now to use web access rather than email. I find it much easier to keep track of the views expressed by contributors using web access rather than email.

Of course, as in so many things, YMMV!

Chris

Chris,

I /can/ see the rationale behind this. However, I find myself
wondering about "training spam filters"; precisely what does it mean?

Most content-based spam filters have a provision for users to make corrections - marking as "not Spam" messages which should not have been delivered to the Spam folder, and marking as "Spam" those which were delivered to the Inbox but should have been in the Spam folder.

The "should" in the above is deliberately subjective. Ideally, the filter takes the user's corrections into account to better tune the results to each user's preferences. Some email services' filters are better at this than others.

My ISP is BT (I'm in the UK) although I normally use Outlook as my
email client. When we first migrated to Groups.io I found that quite a
few messages from Groups.io were being diverted by BT (or whoever!)
having marked them as spam, so unless I went looking for them they
were invisible.

This is a common problem when using an email client via the POP protocol: the client sees only the server's Inbox, messages diverted to other folders (such as Spam) at the server are invisible to the client. Using the IMAP protocol instead has several benefits, not the least of which is making the rest of your server folders accessible through the client.

invisible. My immediate workaround was to switch all spam filtering
off - obviously not without risk but at the moment the result is
manageable.

When I was using POP I would generally turn off the email service's spam filter as well, or tell it to mark the messages but deliver them to the Inbox anyway. Then my POP client (Eudora Pro) had its own spam filter - which I generally found to be better than my ISP's filters.

However, I also have a Yahoo mail account only because it was
unavoidable as a Yahoo Group member (several of them) & moderator (of
one). Try as I might I cannot find a corresponding means of defining
safe senders; /yes/ I can mark individual emails as "not spam" but how
many times would I have to do that for Yahoo to "learn" that
@groups.io messages were safe? Would it /ever/ actually learn that?

I have several as well, but I don't access them except for testing things. So I really can't tell you anything about the nature or quality of Yahoo Mail's filter.

I believe though that you can set up a filter in Yahoo Mail that will match any message with "groups.io" in the To/CC field and have the action be to send it to the Inbox. But you'd have to try it to see if it bypasses the Spam designation.

Is Yahoo the exception, with ALL other mail providers allowing
specified senders to be marked as being safe?

I'm not sure, it may be the other way around. Most of the time I've read instructions for particular email services it seems like the advice is to either add the address to your address book, or to add a filter rule. The trend may be away from separate white/black lists.

With such a proliferation of Mail Providers it is almost certainly too
simple to expect there to be a "one size fits all" instruction to
members.

That is certainly true.

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

Given the unsophistication of many members (which means that they have no idea of spam filters, let alone what to about them), and the difficulties of understanding what anyone thinks is going on (are e-mails sent to spam 'accidental' or 'deliberate' (and if so to what end)?), anything intended to cause group members to take any particular action is unlikely to succeed, certainly beyond a simple click (and frequently even that).

My thought is that unsubscribing people, and allowing them to rejoin the group, is perhaps a bit brutal, and will frequently lead them to yo-yo out and back into the group. and not necessarily resolve the 'marked as spam' problem.

Better to set them to 'no mail', with a message saying something like
"Messages sent to you have been reported as spam, so we (groups.io) [assume you do not wish to receive them and] have set you to 'no mail' and won't send any more. If you no longer wish to be a group member then <do this>. Alternatively you may continue to read messages at <web address>. Should you wish to receive e-mails please ensure that they are NOT marked as spam (this may be done automatically by your e-mail provider, so you may need to change your settings with them), and change your e-mail delivery preference at <webpage> " ?

There is the question of what to do about groups where 'no mail' is not allowed - either it should be forced (overriding group owner's setting) or (in this case only) that they should be unsubscribed.

Jeremy?

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 01:37 pm, Jeremy Harrison wrote:

Given the unsophistication of many members (which means that they have no idea of spam filters, let alone what to about them), and the difficulties of understanding what anyone thinks is going on (are e-mails sent to spam 'accidental' or 'deliberate' (and if so to what end)?), anything intended to cause group members to take any particular action is unlikely to succeed, certainly beyond a simple click (and frequently even that).

I think we should also consider that many Owners and Moderators might fall into the "unsophisticated" description as well. I would never try to pass myself off as any sort of "IT specialist". Even if we are a sort of "first line of defence" there are going to be limits to what we can do to advise bewildered members. Thank goodness for this forum!

There is the question of what to do about groups where 'no mail' is not allowed - either it should be forced (overriding group owner's setting) or (in this case only) that they should be unsubscribed.

I didn't suggest that earlier because I didn't want to make any reconfiguration of how Groups.io operates bigger than it needed to be; for all I know it might be an easy option to implement - OTOH it might be a real headache. (See my comment above about not being an IT specialist!) The big plus about your suggestion is that it would satisfy both camps.

FWIW I would support the draft wording of your "you have been set to no mail" message.

Regards,

Chris

开云体育

I would as well. I'm not an expert or anything like that, but I do agree.?A "no mail" wording would be nice. Most of my members in my groups I run have more?experience in this stuff than I do, but still. The "you have ben set to no mail because ..." is a good idea.

开云体育

J,

In fact, in my group if I've seen that it's happened, I just
direct-add the person back in, since we're a premium group with that
capability.

Well, taking that act upon yourself certainly defeats the "forcing function", the point of which was to inconvenience the member as a motivation for them to do whatever is needed to avoid future occurrences.

... it's barely even a slap on the wrist if it lets the member right
back in again, which it does. It's like going through the motions.

It is a reminder. It isn't really intended as a punishment, much less a severe one. But a nagging reminder to do better.

Shal


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

开云体育

Jeremy,

My thought is that unsubscribing people, and allowing them to rejoin
the group, is perhaps a bit brutal, and will frequently lead them to
yo-yo out and back into the group. and not necessarily resolve the
'marked as spam' problem.

I don't see how suspending message delivery by a different means (e.g. No Mail) would be any more effective at resolving the issue.

An advantage to "dismemberment" is that it correctly handles the other case: the case where the member has lost interest in the group and used the "mark as spam" feature of their email interface rather than unsubscribing. That advice is not uncommon - for example Yahoo Mail's advice on the subject:

o Unsubscribe from mailing lists
At the bottom of any subscription based email there is an option to
unsubscribe. If you're not sure the email is legit, mark it as spam.

Better to set them to 'no mail', ...
...
There is the question of what to do about groups where 'no mail' is
not allowed

As I've mentioned before, I would not propose a mechanism that changes the user's Email Delivery setting - for that reason among others. Instead I'd propose a new subscription status.
/g/GroupManagersForum/message/6782

The only advantage (over the current "dismemberment" mechanism) that I can see being gained by this extra complexity is that it converts the member to effectively a web-only member of the group. And for some that might be the best answer.

Shal


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

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 04:41 pm, Shal Farley wrote:

taking that act upon yourself certainly defeats the "forcing function"

Of course it does. And I was waiting for that exact response. My point is that it's virtually no different from giving them a link to resubscribe. Seriously. What's the epsilon of difference? Of COURSE the message I send them explains (or tries to - lol) that they were automatically removed because they "or their email spam filter" marked a groups.io message as spam. It then provides the standard warning about not marking messages as spam yada yada. Nobody pays it the slightest heed, because nobody themself is marking messages as spam. Nobody has the slightest idea what I'm talking about in the message and they just rejoin the group and go on their merry way.

How is this even a "nagging reminder to do better"? Seriously. LMAO. Sorry.
?
--
J