This is an issue I’ve brought up several times: there is strange logic (or possible no logic) surrounding which notices can be chosen at the time of the action vs which are chosen as “active”

J, An error of omission on my part. Even without a payload, the misdirected return message represents a means of DoS attack against a member by flooding their Inbox with these notifications. Then

I agree with Bruce and noticed the same as I was getting my group setup for launch last week. Hopefully adding on (versus being a non-sequitur) to that point with this but I'd like to suggest some

IMHO, the problem with this line of reasoning is seeing groups.io as a single thing. Such an attack would target a single group because a locked thread belongs to one and only one group. If the

Sorry, Duane, this is a legitimate discussion. And it has nothing to do with shooting down a suggestion. There are technical issues that have been under discussion and that deserve airing. I stand

...but does not behave as some of the others, where you can pick which one you want at the time of the invitation. So maybe that's all that needs to be changed. -- J Messages are the sole opinion

Oops, I just checked and this is already the case. The invite is a notice type already. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in

Although the invite is not really a member notice yet, possibly (at some point in the future) it could be made into one, and there could be more than one invite "notice" per group so that you could

Sometimes when I send a group invitation, I change the canned wording to customize it for the invitee. After sending the invitation, I then have to return to my Member Notices and edit it back to what

Shal, That's true, but I agree with everything else Brian said, and the "payload" need not exist if a polite rejection message were to be send without the inclusion of the original message. What is

I should add that I fully defer to the arguments that locked threads are necessary and a user friendly response is desirable, but I won't endorse a solution that relaxes security because Groups.io is

Yes. Since there is no owner/moderator activity involved, it would be better to have it read something like "system@groups.io" as sender groetjes, Ronaldo

As well as the points already discussed, it is worth pointing out that the process of being removed for marking as spam and the resulting email exchange is as far as I know unique to groups.io. I

The same could be, and is, said for inane sig lines and witticisms some think are humorous in messages. Another reason I have never subscribed via email- either here at at Y* on near 30 groups of

Please see https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/20525 Duane

Brian, No, it does not. As things are now nothing is sent "back" to anyone. The server that is attempting to deliver the message is told "no", and given the error code and short text at connection

Except it doesn't. The request to remove the original message from the locked message eliminates "the payload" as described entirely. That payload exists today, and could be exploited and would be

I agree with all your points — and just as soon as we learn what we are doing, things will change again. I groan every time Apple updates the iOS. I use the iPhone minimally and don’t need almost

Sharon, what follows is not, in any way, intended as an argument with what you've said but really reinforcing its core points while tossing out a few of the "around the edges" assertions. I am in my

Another confusing factor with the Auto-Message is that it appears to be coming from the Owner of the member's group rather than from GROUPS.IO itself as can be seen in the FAQ sample message. In our