It seems to me that you suggested the best solution, at least, partly, above: Don't allow any attachments, and insist that members use links to their photos. Or, have them upload their files to the

Received from YT9TP - Pedja via Groups.Io at 3/15/2019 06:21 AM UTC: Or you could set a size limit on images and larger ones will be downsized (rather than stripped) to that limit.. It's one of the

p.s. Mark, I'm now guessing that possibly, the display name changes when the member changes their "name" field on their email address, regardless of group. I still think this should be logged in the

I forgot to mention that our group immediately sets each member's display name, upon approval, to their first name plus their cat's name. So it is obvious when it has been changed to, e.g., their

Mark, There's a log entry "set display name via email." When it appears, especially in the case of a generally inactive member, I usually look into the member's activity log to see if there's a

Well then you deal with highly educated users :) I guess for average internet user it is normal to drag and drop full resolution photo from his camera or mobile phone and attach it. Not jut singe

I have tested this, and found that if your group is set to Plain Text, you won't be able to embed an image using the online message editor, because the html toolbar is disabled. However, you can still

Jim, Oh, I misread that and thought you were self-referential by doing a ground-hog day thing too. 😜 -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is

Yes, Andy, that was the point! -- 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

Hahahahaha! 🤪 -- 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

That comment also had a link to a previous discussion which was the point of making it I guess. Andy

My point is that "Seems like groundhog day" sounds (at least to me) nothing like, "People might want to have a look to see what's been said about this before." Jim H Received from J_Catlady at

My point is that people might want to have a look to see what’s been said about this before. What is YOUR point? 🙁 -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy

Received from J_Catlady at 3/14/2019 07:15 PM UTC: That conversation was 5 messages back in August 2018. Today is March 14, 2019. So your point is...? Jim H

Received from YT9TP - Pedja via Groups.Io at 3/14/2019 09:38 AM UTC: I've never seen a message so large as to be objectionable unless it was a reply to a digest with the whole digest quoted. That

This conversation is paralleling the conversation I just posted a link to a couple of messages back, including the discussion of automatic vs manual reinstatement, etc. -- J Messages are the sole

Received from JohnF via Groups.Io at 3/14/2019 12:30 AM UTC: Yes! "Suspend Member" with an option for an automatic unsuspension could be a really useful feature. Jim H

Fixed. Thanks, Mark

Implementing my suggestion would in no way require you to have many, or even a single, canned notice. Just as with rejected messages, the composition box would offer a dropdown of any existing canned

I'm thinking in spurts again: Although it's true that rejected messages require a notification. "deleted" pending messages don't. A pending message can be rejected with no notification to the user by