Hi Mark, I say instead of moderating all groups, just make it to where all groups require subscription approval from an owner/moderator. This will make it easier on people who have lots of traffic

You make a good point. How about I modify the proposal: All (parent) groups must either be restricted or set to moderated or NuM (or some combination thereof). In each case there's at least one

I have my groups listed in the directory except for one. Because it's one for the bible study group at my church. But for my Christian discussion groups I currently have them set where we approve

I'd absolutely have no problem with it, and it's how I run my groups anyway, specifically to avoid spammers. Everett

I need to sanity check the lingo here, please, and then ask a question, because as stated this proposal confuses me. I thought: "Moderated" meant all posts have to be approved by a moderator. The

We moderate all our groups (prevention of spam being one of the major reasons we do so - even when someone is a legit member their account can be hacked and then it's a snowball effect ( if links are

Hi Mark, My preference would be to allow group moderators to choose to leave their group unmoderated if that is what they want to do. I am a current owner/moderator of several groups here, all of

There is really, general chat forums for example should not need moderating by default.

I wouldn't enforce any time frame. It'd either be after the set number of approved messages for NuM (if there is one specified), or by action of the moderator. Thanks, Mark

What would the time frame be for taking people off New User Moderated? as soon as Owner is sure its not a spammer? any time? if so, I have no object. I dont currently moderate either of my

Hi All, One of the things I'm seeing with the spammer is that they'll subscribe to an existing group and post their spam. If a group is moderated or has NuM set, the group members never see the spam

It's quite possible the addresses are all from yahoo.com because they're part of the big Yahoo password compromise, so let's assume the spammer has cracked the passwords of thousands of legitimate,

On Oct 4, 2016 12:36 PM, "Mark Fletcher" <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote: >> >> >> > ... (each using a unique Yahoo email as

I agree. You would typically create a slew of them at once. So perhaps make weekly and monthly limits? Sent from my iPhone -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author.  I wish I could shut

The issue I see with one list per week, is when creating groups for similar, but related things. By way of example: * Software-program-users: General list, for all users; *

And maybe a control could be added for addition of subgroups within a list in case that's a potential loophole if limits were to be placed and found to be helpful.

Totally agree! Maria

I may stand corrected by other list owners, but a discussion group is a lot of work and serious non-spamming owners put lots of hard work into running lists. I, therefore doubt that legitimate lists

I suggest that we use IP addresses. Me and a friend of mine has had a bad experience with someone who joins groups with just 2 words followed by numbers and uses every email address with these 2

He's not using the disposable address feature. They're just plain-jane Yahoo accounts. He clearly has access to as many Y! accounts as he wants. He has also started joining existing groups and sending