Excellent! Thanks Mark. Jim Fisher -- http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom (needs updating) http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic

Peter, Both cases are received by the same user account at gmail, whether an alias was predefined or not. The alias case simply allows the user to filter incoming messages based on the

Shal: Understood now. So if no aliases are defined and I send an email to <myname+sometext@...>, it will simply strip and discard "+sometext" (which is what I have seen), whereas if I define

Bruce, Yes, I believe that was the intent, similar to Locking or Moderating a topic. True, but the use case I see for hiding just a single message would be in an otherwise valuable and/or important

Peter, That's exactly what Gmail means by an alias: username+foo is an alias for username. But it isn't stripped - the +foo part shows in the received message and is available for use in filter

I like the idea, if restricted to Topics, and given only to Owners and Moderators with the "edit archives" permission. The ability to hide individual messages can create confusion when the remaining

Which was the point I was making, albeit rather obliquely in my earlier post. An email to the ICO (Information Commissioner for non - UK readers) might just stir things up a bit. Chris.

In my last message message, something or someone downstream of me replaced the word "gmail" after the @ symbol, by three dots,in two places, and that wrecked the meaning. Truncation of the user-part

Shal's reference to gmail using "+" in some way associated with aliases, is not consistent with the observation (by me and others) that gmail truncates leftsides at a "+" . An email to

And also being on that group I have seen the offending message that should have just been sent to owners. Some owner messages should never be accidentally sent to the whole list. As for gmail

Chris, The problem is that the affected person may not be a user of the service that’s messed up. I would however say that there may be a case for filing a GDPR failure against them Dave

IMHO this is a very strong lever to try to get the service provider(s) to get their act in order; an address that was acceptably formatted was corrupted with the result that personal information sent

Thanks for that Dave! For the benefit of the others reading this, I believe Dave is referring to a group in which both Dave and I (and Chris) are members, and the individual in question was

Mark, GMAIL also ignores “+” and almost all special symbols. (it didn’t used to), but if moderators, one of whom is on BTINTERNET try and use this to chat to each other , then the results are

Folks, The trouble is when it goes wrong, the effect can be somewhat devastating. When it happened on one of the lists I am on some very personal information about an individual that should not have

Chris, Moreover, it is a decision with precedent. Gmail has been using + for aliases since long before Groups.io was started. Shal

Dave, They can post messages to the group using whichever interface they like. It is only email commands (including messages to +owner) that are afflicted by synchronoss' error. Whose web interface

Sorry; I think that is unfair. If + is supposed to be acceptable character under the terms of RFC 2821 then using it was a perfectly reasonable decision. The fact that a particular combination of

Peter, Gmail is another. It uses + in the user part as the lead-in for an alias address. That feature won't work properly with messages sent from a synchronoss afflicted service. You can add to

Um, the idea of btinternet users only posting via the web interface is surely a non starter. I have no statistics but I sense on the groups I moderate that probably 80% of users, including a LOT of