Of course. And for the groups that would consider it a disadvantage: don't use the feature. But sometimes - even, often - moderators don't want their group members contacting each other offlist. The

Depending on the type of group, it could be a serious disadvantage that people cannot contact eachother "offlist", as in: lots of chitchat on-list that other people don't find interesting. Like on

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 06:00 PM UTC: I don't know if you got it all or not. I do know that I didn't concludethat the feature wasn't important or desired, so if that's what you got,then

It isn't that there are no simple solutions. Rather, there are no simple solutions that also enable Groups.IO to meet the legal requirements of some of the countries that subscribers are either

ps If I misread your point please for the love of god.. er, groups.io...forgive me!!! -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours,

I would not jump to the conclusion that the feature was not important or desired. There simply were perceived difficulties in achieving it.But I’ll try not to rehash this. You could go back and

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC: I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. Ifyears ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparentlychose to either

You’re welcome. 😊🐱 -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 04:58 PM UTC: Oh gimme a break! Being first by 35 seconds when you were wrong to begin with doesn't seem like something to emphasize at this point. Well...

Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago. There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 03:25 PM UTC: I oppose implementation via the approach of a web-only group. A web-only interface isn't necessary to achieve the goal of members being unable to

All apologies. I read too fast and, as I’ve indicated, missed the crucial word ‘not.’ I did send my message first, as you can see by the list order. But I understand you had not seen it yet

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 02:34 AM UTC: If you will take note of the timestamp on both messages (both 03:11 in the group) you'll see we sent them at the same time. So I couldn't have seen

The advantage is as I stated at the beginning: the ability to create an "anonymous group," where members are not privy to the other members' email addresses. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of

What is wrong that needs to be fixed? I never use email access except under exceptional circumstances. Works fine for me. Presumably there are thousands (millions?) of other users that are

This is purely a suggestion for an easy way to implement "anonymous groups." I think anyone (or almost anyone) who uses the feature simply to create such a group would not even list it in the

Although I see why you are suggesting this, I am strongly against it. I assume you intend it to be optional, so a group owner can set their group as web only when it is set up, but email access to

You missed my previous message. 😊 -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 01:11 AM UTC: I never said "real IDs." Those are your words... your straw manset up only to be shot down. What I said was "some sort of 'DisplayName' that would

Oh, I see you said "no connection." Yes, I envision that everyone would have a display name. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up