[OJS 3.x] Automatically emailing all members

Hi there,

I notice that this system is more of an “opt-out” service, which I believe does go against the anti-span legislation. Is there a way to create an “opt-in” option for mail-outs instead. As it stands now, every person who requests removal from the list, needs to go into their personal settings and deselect the announcement notifications. The only thing that should be automatic should be internal communication notifications.

Serena

Hi @Serena_Henderson,

What specific version of OJS are you using? (Please include this in your posts.)

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

@asmecher We are using OJS3.
Serena

Hi @Serena_Henderson,

What release of OJS 3? e.g. 3.1.1, 3.1.2-1, etc.

Thanks,
Alec

@asmecher Version: 3.1.2.1
Serena

Hi @Serena_Henderson,

And just to be clear, the specific email that you’re asking about is the new announcement notification, correct?

Regards,
Alec Smecher
Public Knowledge Project Team

Hi Alec,

Yes, the “new announcement” of an issue being published.

Serena

@asmecher

I have done some digging and the way the auto email is displayed is a breach of CASL legislation. In accordance with CASL the following conditions must be met:

  1. Remember that your message must include:
  • your business name and the name of anyone on whose behalf you’re sending the message
  • a current mailing address and either a phone number, email or website address
  • accurate contact information that will be valid for at least 60 days after you send the message
  • an unsubscribe mechanism in accordance with subsection 11(1) of CASL

This email is missing a couple of these. These elements should be automatically included in this kind of push notification.

Thanks!
Serena

Hi @Serena_Henderson, @asmecher asked me to take a look at this (I’m the informal CASL issues/review person @ PKP). Which of these elements are missing? And a quick check, have you configured a signature with business name, mailing address, etc. in Settings > Workflow > Emails? I’m just trying to get a handle on what’s missing here.

Thanks,
James

@jmacgreg
Thank you for your response. While I can manually configure the signature, an unsubscribe mechanism is not provided as per subsection 11(1).

11 (1) The unsubscribe mechanism referred to in paragraph 6(2)© must

(a) enable the person to whom the commercial electronic message is sent to indicate, at no cost to them, the wish to no longer receive any commercial electronic messages, or any specified class of such messages, from the person who sent the message or the person — if different — on whose behalf the message is sent, using

    (i) the same electronic means by which the message was sent, or

    (ii) if using those means is not practicable, any other electronic means that will enable the person to indicate the wish; and

(b) specify an electronic address, or link to a page on the World Wide Web that can be accessed through a web browser, to which the indication may be sent.

I would also suggest an automatic signature that can be edited by the administrator be added so that these violations aren’t accidentally made by journals.

Serena

Hi Serena,

Thanks for the additional info and guidance! I’ve added two new issues to GitHub:

Can you take a look, and add any other comments as you see fit?

@NateWr mentioned in an earlier comment on another issue that an unsubscribe link “will remain for 3.2”; there’s a chance that I may have overlooked work done already for 3.2 in another issue (there are a fair number of similar, overlapping issues wrt consent, privacy, permissions and email subscriptions), but he can let us know if that’s the case or not.

Thanks,
James

Thanks James,

The comments you made look good. While I don’t have a GitHub account, I would be inclined to suggest that an easy and probably the most effective fix to the unsubscribe issue would be that there is an unsubscribe link in every auto email sent to members.

Thanks!
Serena

I’m not aware of any existing work on an unsubscribe link. When I said “will remain for 3.2” I meant that the work on this would be bumped from 3.1.2 to 3.2. But the work has not yet been done for this.

I agree this is an important issue and I’ll see about getting the second issue that James added assigned to our 3.2 milestone.