开云体育

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 05:58 am, Paul Ohio USA wrote:

From Wikipedia

"Rocketmail was a service that competed with Yahoo's own Yahoo Mail product in the 1990s. Yahoo acquired the service and later closed it; however, in 2008, Yahoo! Mail allowed users to create email accounts with 'rocketmail.com.'"

But does that mean that it ought to be in the list or not? Please clarify.

I used the phrase with the arguable exception of rocketmail because it seemed logical to include it, rather than because the name had arisen in the context of FBLs.

I think ymail.com needs to go on the list as well. I'll make a mental note to add it later.

Chris

Paul Ohio USA <pwberndt@...> wrote:

I think it should be on the list because they live by Yahoo's policies.
Also, btinternet, a British provider who used Yahoo services but has
split off should probably be included. I don't remember if any of my
group members who use btinternet have "Spammed Out."

BT still use Yahoo for some (most?) customers. The change to Critical Path
was stopped before completion. The BT Yahoo email service is as unreliable
as it ever was.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><
...
Meaningless tagline attached to pointless message.

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:24 am, Paul Ohio USA wrote:

I don't remember if any of my group members who use btinternet have "Spammed Out."

And neither do I, unfortunately. Being a UK based group there are quite a few of them (us actually; I use btinternet as well) Although automatic dismemberment is not an everyday occurrence I will keep a watch out for any. My BT mail did migrate to another supplier so with an uncertain proportion of subscribers on each of the providers getting anything statistically meaningful is not going to be easy.

Much earlier in this thread I (and I think another) floated the idea of any membership cancellations because of spam reporting being replaced by? a forced change to "no emails / web only" access. One member here raised the point that his group did not allow "no emails", which might well be a valid objection. However, having thought about it a bit more, surely an enforced use of "web only" simply has to be better than being unceremoniously removed from membership completely.

Would there be a concensus in favour of this? If one emerges then I will place it as a suggestion on beta.

Regards,

Chris

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 06:44 am, Chris Jones wrote:

Although automatic dismemberment is not an everyday occurrence I will keep a watch out for any.

I like that..."automatic dismemberment." Reminds me of spontaneous human combustion. :-)

Much earlier in this thread I (and I think another) floated the idea of any membership cancellations because of spam reporting being replaced by? a forced change to "no emails / web only" access. One member here raised the point that his group did not allow "no emails", which might well be a valid objection. However, having thought about it a bit more, surely an enforced use of "web only" simply has to be better than being unceremoniously removed from membership completely.

I'm the one who mentioned this. As long as in groups such as mine the member was placed on Special Notices instead of No Email, I would be okay with this means of handling "removed for spam." Please give a lot of thought, though, as to whether this is the best way to deal with that rare person who might be actually spamming.

Bruce

In response to Bruce & Paul...

I can see your point about "Special Notices". However, it has been our (as in our Group) experience that it has been sending out a special notice that has caused the problem! It is suspected that the members concerned may have been set to "special notices only", so normal traffic didn't get sent to them. Then along comes a special message and the MSP immediately says "spam!" and deletes them.

In your specific cases what would happen if your "special notice" sent out as a rescue mission was itself marked as spam? Would the MSP finish up getting annoyed because 2 spams had been found and the feedback loop had seemed to have done nothing?

With setting to "no email" then you can still email the individual concerned by sending them a direct one. Also can you send an email to one specific member as a Special Notice? I don't know but I suspect perhaps not; you would finish up sending it to everyone on Special Notices.

At the time I am typing this I am awaiting a poll I set up being passed by GMF Management; if I can do an edit to it after it is released then I can add another question, but I honestly think relying on special notices may cause more problems than it solves. Don't forget that if a member is set to "no mail" while they are still a member you as an owner or moderator can set it back to something else yourself; if they have been dismembered you can't. There are other ways of contacting them than by using a special notice.

And I use the term "dismember" because it is so obviously the wrong word. :)

Regards,

Chris

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 01:16 pm, Paul Ohio USA wrote:

Additionally, would the Group Owner still get a notification of the change and what prevents the owner or member from just changing back to Individual and having a repeat of Spam - Delete cycle?

I would hope so (it would be an integral part of any #suggestion) , and "nothing" in that order! Further to the latter point there is nothing in the existing regime to stop a member? "unspamming" the offending message, clicking "Rejoin" for the whole thing to be repeated again at some future point; I suspect that it is something in the message rather than its origin of Groups.io that offends some spam detectors.

If the existing protocol continues (and the idea of a change is now beginning to look as though it is heading for the "Too Difficult" tray) then the finalisation of the wiki and its dissemination may help mitigate the worst effects. The critical word there is may; publishing guidance and persuading people to read it are very different things.

Unfortunately...

Regards,

Chris

Special Notices can definitely be a problem if you abuse the privilege and send them too often. But those who have needed to contact their entire group before migration from Yahoo have seen the other side of the "no email" option.?

The bottom line is that for my own reasons I want this feature, and the suggestion that it should be taken out of my toolbox to provide a quick fix to an unrelated problem does not strike me as productive.?

Regards,
Bruce