That's not what you need to show. It is "hopelessly impractical" in the sense that there will always be cases where it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. To make a promise in the

J, But it does show that it is not "hopelessly impractical" in general. It is hearsay, but I've no reason to doubt the members of Y!GMF who reported receiving such demands, or those who reported

Shal, Being able to provide one, two, or 100 examples where it was practical obviously does not prove its practical in general. The rest (“yahoo did not find it impractical”) is either

J, I simply said that the Yahoo TOS (pre-Verizon, anyway) provides example text that limits the license granted to the service. That limitation means that if the member (or Yahoo) removes their

Emails that violate hashtag rules (or perhaps other restrictions) are retained as Drafts...just as if they were composed online. The subscriber is sent an email with a link to that draft. They must

Disagree. Are you saying you can provide an example showing it's practical? That's not logical. Or are you saying I should provide an example to show it's not practical? Not necessary. You'd have to

J, He may not want to. Or he may not have decided to do it yet. Neither of those suggests that it is "hopelessly impractical" to do. A worked example demonstrates that an idea is not "hopelessly

It was an intended hashtag. The subject was included in the log entry. And it did not bounce. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in

She may not have intended to use/create a hashtag at all but merely included a "#" character in some other context. So, any revised warning message should probably address that possibility (if it

Shal, If it’s so ludicrous, then why do you think Mark hasn’t changed the TOU yet? What Y!G does, or attempts to do (we don’t know whether successfully or unsuccessfully), is irrelevant IMHO. --

J, That's a ludicrous answer. a) Yahoo Groups already had language limiting the license granted to the service. Mark may not want that exact language, but the TOU has already been changed at least

p.s. In addition to changing the verbiage, I think the attempted message should be recorded somewhere, possibly in the pending queue. Instead, it's just completely lost and i have no idea what this

I just found the following log entry in the group activity log and had no idea what it meant: "[xyz member] sent message "[message subject]" with a new tag, has been asked to update subject via

(This is the point where Shal says: "That's why I think the TOU should be changed so that the permission is not granted in perpetuity." And that's where I say, "Changing the TOU to explicitly allow

Exactly. Not to mention that users explicitly grant groups.io the right to post their content forever. Coming from the other side of the discussion, this is why - and we've been through this

And of course all those posts are in countless email inboxes and web mail of which groups.io and moderators have no control. It is totally impossible. Dave http://davesergeant.com

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 03:26 AM, Ken Schweizer included this link: Now (like Mark) IANAL, and the material in the link is a News Bulletin not "Qualified Legal Opinion", but taken at face value the

It appears that the EU agrees with you although I would have preferred they hadn't sided with Google. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 Ken 2Ch 7:14 “If my people, which are

We don't currently have this function. This was a scenario I discussed with my GDPR lawyers back when I was going through this. From what I remember, it was basically that the law was a bit unclear

When there is a turnover of a Board, for example, it would be useful to delete chitchat from previous members. I have been wondering too about the GDPR - "The GDPR is the most comprehensive EU data