Thank you for the explanation. The dates of the bouncing events were spread out over months, not consecutive days so conditions were not met, as you have

The reason I ask is that if you ban by entering the email address, a new member record for the banned account is created (as I understand it), regardless of whether or not the email address was

Actually I have a couple that are not NMM. However, all (or nearly all) of the NMM ones did not have that status when banned. One clue is that they're all NMM(3). And all, or nearly all, of them

In my group they've all become NMM. Did you ban them by the action dropdown, or by entering the email address? -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My

I'm not seeing that on all of them. On most I see whatever status they had when they were banned. Duane

Mark, Not only is it still not working, but now, every member of the Banned list shows up as NMM. This is correct for email addresses that were banned without having joined the group, but is not

I think there's a separate thread for that. -- 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. -

I'm responding to this since the suggestion originally posted on canny was mine: That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ability to view/access certain things or not, with

Mark, I wrote: I hope it is understood that I'm still interested in a resolution to this, my lack of response to some of the advice and comments from others notwithstanding. Shal

What he said.....and NO promoted person should be able to oust the original owner.

There are lots of non-technical, non-administrative jobs that could use the some of the information that moderators may see but that don't require some of the other privileges/ abilities that are

You could read the original suggestion for an understanding of this. There is already some granularity (called "permissions") in what mods can and can't do. The suggestion is for more, and for better

I'm not sure what "granularity" means here You want moderators to decide what they view and what not? What good is a moderator who can't approve or reject messages, and can't put abusers on

Ability to send scheduled monthly events. currently when we fill out our calendar 3-6 months in advance, when the month calendar is scheduled, it will send all 3-6 months worth of events. We would

I posted a prior reply to this but it seems to have poofed. Since then, I have discovered that facebook does preview an image that is in the post being linked. If there is no image in the post, then

I left the bouncing member in the group so that I could see what would happen when the next bounce probe went out four days later. That was today, and sure enough, the bounce of the bounce probe

- CHANGE: Standardized on the term `member`; we used `subscriber` and `user` previously. Several tweaks to the group settings page. Changed NuM to NMM. - INTERNAL: Much work to support moving from

It is. I just wrote that part of the #changelog before I changed the terminology everywhere. Thanks, Mark

Should that be NMM instead of NuM? -- Bob Bellizzi

It was a classifieds list and the link was to a product. Completely legit. Mark