PDA

View Full Version : halfway OT Yahoo group question.....



J Tiers
10-16-2013, 09:36 PM
I have noticed a growing trend on Yahoo.... I cannot reply to some messages...... I can attach a reply, but when the message is repeated outbound, Yahoo has stripped-off the reply, sending ONLY the original message content.

I'm by no means the only person who has seen this, it seems to happen a lot. Not always, but quite a bit.

The only way anyone has stated that they get around it seems to be by copying the old message to a new one, copying the group address into the new message, copying the subject to the new message, then adding new material and finally sending it.

That seems to not be the easiest way of "hitting reply", but of course that may not be how Yahoo sees it.

Anyone know about this and maybe how it is avoided?

Most people with the issue seem to be using older email programs, often Outlook or Express but they often seem to have significant email history, and don't want to lose it.

lakeside53
10-16-2013, 09:53 PM
I use Yahoo mail (only), Outlook 2010 and Win7; no issues at all. I don't use the web interface - just POP 3. I do pay for the premium (no ads) service. 50-200 emails per day; maybe 1/3 of these from yahoo groups. My Wife uses the web client and IE10. No "reply" issues, but she's a light user (handful of emails/day, no groups).

dp
10-16-2013, 10:23 PM
Yahoo is the main reason I set up my own BBS and mail list servers. I should have instant messaging running soon, too. I don't know of a more annoying social networking provider, and they've always been that way.

J Tiers
10-17-2013, 08:52 AM
I use Yahoo mail (only), Outlook 2010 and Win7; no issues at all. I don't use the web interface - just POP 3. I do pay for the premium (no ads) service. 50-200 emails per day; maybe 1/3 of these from yahoo groups. My Wife uses the web client and IE10. No "reply" issues, but she's a light user (handful of emails/day, no groups).

I should have mentioned that my actual email is through Yahoo, because ATT uses Yahoo.

Maybe if I did everything in the cloud through Yahoo it might be more compatible, but that's not how it works.

Marty Feldman
10-17-2013, 09:55 AM
Dumping Yahoo is my personal preference, always. There are other ways to do anything Yahoo does, and do it in easier, smarter fashion.

Willy
10-17-2013, 10:15 AM
Yahoo is the main reason I set up my own BBS and mail list servers. I should have instant messaging running soon, too. I don't know of a more annoying social networking provider, and they've always been that way.


Dumping Yahoo is my personal preference, always. There are other ways to do anything Yahoo does, and do it in easier, smarter fashion.

I couldn't agree more with both of these comments!

Which brings up the question...how does one quit the new Yahoo? I have never had any issues editing my membership in the previous version of Yahoo groups but I'll be darned if I can figure out how to pull the plug on this new incarnation.
I don't want to go to my grave knowing I'm still a member.:o

J Tiers
10-17-2013, 09:26 PM
Well, you can set up your own groups, on your own server, but it seems easier to use what is provided.......

So YOU can do it in an easier, smarter, fashion, all by your self, I guess....

dp
10-17-2013, 09:59 PM
In my case I'm already setting up this stuff for my customers, so building one for me is little effort. And since nobody knows where it is I have it all to myself :) That keeps down the moderating chores. Oddly, I've had a good number of applicants from the old USSR states show up. How they find these things so fast is amazing.

J Tiers
10-18-2013, 08:35 AM
I'd like to find out if any settings changes can affect the way Yahoo handles differently encoded messages. What I have seen called "poisoned" threads, ones that were once replied to by a user of a particular type of software, are annoying, since the thread seems to be impossible to reply to after that. If it is just a setting, that would be great.

In fact, I have seen nothing that indicated that ANY local email software is capable of dealing with the problem. Most seem to give up and do their email on-line.

Apparently this is yet another thing acting to force users to abandon control of their data and release it to the ad services, Google crawlers, the NSA, and all the other various forces of evil on the 'net.



As far as groups, it seems that there is Yahoo, and then there are a few bit players. Some bit players have a few groups of interest, depending, but yahoo has the infrastructure, however bad it may be. Some other services have folded, taking the group message histories with them.

You may find that questions asked on your own private group may go unanswered for a long time. :)

dp
10-18-2013, 10:57 AM
Yahoo groups exist for the sole purpose of harvesting data. If data can be shown programmatically to have no value to the benefactor there is no reason to encourage more, nor to retain what exists.

Yahoo and similar virtual environments are required by the business model to make your data difficult or impossible to be shared (meaning exploited by other crawlers). This exclusivity is what finally kills them. AOL, CompServ, and other early audience-capturing ventures, for example. This site is freely crawlable by anyone for any purpose but of such a narrow demographic that it isn't worth it to do so from a business perspective. The response for that is the targeted advert services - very little effort is required by the services because the site operators do the leg work and the services get paid whether the adverts work or not. All the risk is on the site ops.

I've made it a practice to avoid systems that are too big to fail but which certainly will. The recent lesson being MySpace - it went from being on top to irrelevance in a very short time. Unless Twitter and Facebook can find a way to create positive cash flow they too will fade or get sucked into Google/Yahoo/Amazon/MSN.

J Tiers
10-18-2013, 06:49 PM
Anyone can look at messages on most groups. That should include crawlers.

To see stored data you must be a member.