?message

[»CypherJF]

I'm seeking your feedback to determine whether or not this should make a blip on my radar for development or not.

 

With SSC, you may only leave 1 message to a user. If you try to send multiple messages your previous message is lost and replaced with the new.

 

My proposal would allow for a mailbox type of system. You may be allowed X number of messages in the box, but may be from any individual.

 

Accede already has the capability of notifying a offline recipient, when they have ?SETEMAIL, of a message via e-mail. However, it is currently disabled via a global biller configuration.

 

Clarification #1: The e-mail generated comes from accede@somedomain.com and does not send anything but the username of the person who left you the message. See below.

 

Date:	 Wed, 2 Jan 2008 01:21:29 -0600 (CST)
From:	accede@example.com
To:	recipient@domain.com
Subject:	(SubSpace Republic) Private Message

Attention,

This e-mail is to inform you that 'CypherJF' has sent
you the following message on 2008-01-02 01:21:27 via
the SubSpace Republic.

testing email message

PLEASE, DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS E-MAIL, IT IS
UNMONITORED.

 

 

Please provide feedback as necessary!

[Hakaku]

About the first question, if the message system allows more than one stored message, then I think there should be a way to delete sent messages.

Currently as it stands, SSC allows 1 sent message, and if you send a new one to the same user, it will erase the previous one. Since Continuum doesn't allow you to send lengthy messages, it would be nice to be able to send multiple ones. However, sometimes I make a mistake and wish to resend a message, or tell the user to ignore this message, and this is possible with 1 message. If multiple ones were allowed, there should at least be an ?dellast:username command, to erase the last message that you sent to a specific user.

 

As for the biller to send the biller send a e-mail notifications for ?messages, I don't think this should be allowed. Consider that one person could m!@#$%^&* ?message people spam and advertisement, and that would all be forwarded to everyone's e-mails (possibly multiple times).... Which is why the web portal is a much better idea, especially for people who aren't using a computer accessible to Continuum, but to the internet yes. Perhaps include a feature to send messages to other users over the web portal.

 

Either that, or allow users the choice to have notifications sent to their e-mail, and by default set it off.

[Samapico]

I answered yes to all... though I consider none of these features critical, really.

[rootbear75]

from reading what hakaku said about spamming ?messages

 

i want to change my vote to "no" for that one, because it is way to easy to program a bot to harvest names of players, and get their email addresses

 

i was also wondering if it is possible to send messages from the web portal

and also, can you establish a chat function that sends you into an empty zone so you can ; chat and :: chat with people?

[»CypherJF]

I appreciate the feedback!

 

rootbear, I have modified the vote count to reflect your vote change.

 

Let me clarify a point -

...it is way to easy to program a bot to harvest names of players, and get their email addresses...

 

The e-mail generated comes from the biller (accede@somedomain.com) and the end-user e-mail is never exposed to the sender of the message. But, I do see your point about the potential of SPAM.

 

i was also wondering if it is possible to send messages from the web portal

Absolutely, it would have to be included. Currently, on the prototype site, you can only view your seen/sent messages which haven't expired.

 

and also, can you establish a chat function that sends you into an empty zone so you can ; chat and :: chat with people?

Technically yes, I could implement the biller to have it's own chatnet server and allow this. But, I would encourage user's to play in a game server where the fun takes place.

[rootbear75]

and also, can you establish a chat function that sends you into an empty zone so you can ; chat and :: chat with people?

Technically yes, I could implement the biller to have it's own chatnet server and allow this. But, I would encourage user's to play in a game server where the fun takes place.

actally, what i was referring to was if the user did NOT have access to continuum, they could go online, and choose either 1) a server to go to and chat with people, or 2) just go into any random zone so they could still chat ; and :: with people

 

like what HS has w/ chatnut

[Smong]

To counter spamming you could use "digests", queue messages up for a few hours/days before sending 1 email containing all notifications.

 

I think email notification would be handy and the web interface to messages sounds convenient too. I would prefer if there were options to toggle these on/off (I'm not sure what the default would be, off I guess to protect users). Also it would be nice if you could only change the options from ingame, that could just make it clumsy but with a web interface you could accidentally lock yourself out (like on a wifi router).

 

Were you planning on using the same password for game logins and the web interface?

[»freakmonger]

I vote yes to all.

 

For the e-mail notification; have it so a player can choose to get notifications from ALL PLAYERS, NO PLAYERS, or players he puts on his 'notficiation' list. (sort of like the invisible list on ICQ or any IM Program)

[»CypherJF]

Were you planning on using the same password for game logins and the web interface?

 

Right now on the Accede Website you can login with your game credentials, so yes. But, this will most likely change if I change the security of the accounts which I do plan on doing.

[PoLiX]

Since I voted, I guess I'll answer.

 

I'd say maybe allow 2 messages from a single person, but the reason it was limited to 1 on SSC was the chance of spamming someone's ?messages to their full limit constantly. We know people cross zone spam, and this wouldn't be something they'd hold back on.

[Cancer+]

I voted..

Yes

No

Yes

 

If you have the portal on the website, no need to have it sent to their email also because that is just redundant. Plus it would just fill up your email box if you are as popular as me

[Aceflyer]

Since I voted, I guess I'll answer.

 

I'd say maybe allow 2 messages from a single person, but the reason it was limited to 1 on SSC was the chance of spamming someone's ?messages to their full limit constantly. We know people cross zone spam, and this wouldn't be something they'd hold back on.

 

Agreed.

[Rareitanium]

Just thought I'd throw in my thought on this. Yes to all poll questions, however even 2 messages per user would not save someone from multi-alias message spam. I see it happen on SSC a lot.

[»CypherJF]

Just thought I'd throw in my thought on this. Yes to all poll questions, however even 2 messages per user would not save someone from multi-alias message spam. I see it happen on SSC a lot.

 

There still is a max # of messages per user that can/should be set.

[Sass]

Yeah, please allow us to send more than 1 message to any given user. I hate making a message then later make another only to realize that the user hasn't read the first one and now I've gone and replaced the previous one which was equally important.

[»D1st0rt]

I actually like the feature of being able to overwrite a previous message if it was in error or no longer relevant. If you want to send another message you can use another name.

 

?message person:S!@#$%^&* again, blah blah blah

[Sass]

That's a pain in the !@#$%^&* hack to resolve the issue !@#$%^&*uming that you've checked the last time the person was on and it's relative to you remembering when you wrote the previous message. Perhaps a ?delmsg function would benefit those who want to erase previous messages.