Shal, whatever the case, Y!G is currently out of compliance with its own TOU. I assume Mark would not want to be put in a similar legal position. Y!G (formerly) allowing people to request restoring of

J, I know that. I also remember that, back when Y!Groups had support, Customer Care would sometimes ask the group owner to let the member back in to delete their content. Or Customer Care would do it

Which means that if the TOU is changed to legally allow groups.io members to force groups.io to take down any of their content, at any time, then groups.io is in a really untenable position because

Shal, Remember that after a member leaves, or is removed from, a group, they can no longer delete their posts anyway. Same as in Y!G. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the

A couple of thoughts pre-dentist: This would alleviates the rootless thread problem in the archive, but does not help with members essentially using the delete feature to get around disabled editing

Mark, I stand on the side of preserving a member's option to delete any or all of their contributions (Messages, Photos, Files, etc.). I understand J's point about the license terms in Groups.io's

They would be threaded into the existing topic. -- 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. -

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 09:51 AM UTC: Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced? It seems to me that enforcement requires looking at all messages with the same

Received from Mark Fletcher at 12/18/2018 05:29 PM UTC: That seems like a useful idea, but it would also be nice to have an option for group owners to turn off the ability of subscribers to delete

Mark, I dunno. Maybe not a bad idea. I’ll think about the possible ramifications as I sit in the dentist’s chair during the next hour and a half. Take my mind off things. :-) -- J Messages are

Received from Dave Sergeant at 12/18/2018 05:03 PM UTC: Same for most of them. If used solely for SEARCH purposes and not for the actions that certain classes of #hashtags can trigger... the result

J, What if, instead of completely nuking the message when someone deletes it, I replace it with something that just says 'This message has been deleted'? Thanks, Mark

Mark, I also tested it via email with the same result. Will retest. -- 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

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 04:18 PM UTC: Possibly (read that as "semi-informed guess") the same reason it would be a problem for some mail reading programs... field size for the subject in

I almost never use less than two. I’m ok with five as the limit but can see legitimate uses for more, depending on the group. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the

If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was

We don't use hashtags in our groups anyway. But there is a very strong reason for limiting the number of hashtags. They make subject lines very long. For those of us who receive email versions of

I think there’s some difficult technical issue Mark alluded to awhile back with increasing the max. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is

Is there a reason for limiting the number of hash tags? Hashtags are different from searching the message text because the user intentionally classifies the message with a tag but a search infers the

Deletion has also created confusing situations in the archive, wherein the top post of the thread is gone but the responses are there and are meaningless. E.g., top post is gone and the thread