Shal, Totally disagree but I’m done here. -- 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. -

J, The only impractical cases I know of I excluded already [beta #22312]. "Hopelessly impractical" is your claim to defend. That's like saying that a car warranty must be upheld under ALL road

The EU is not requiring it. -- 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

Since when was something being "hopelessly impractical” ever a reason for the EU not to mandate it… … also if you delete your Facebook account all posts, likes, comments will be removed. If

At the very least, the phrase "via email" should not be separated from what it refers to. It's very confusing. Thanks for the other info. I would still like to see the message the user receives. But I

To quote Mark, in this thread: "my lawyers interpreted it as I did not have to delete someone's messages in a group when they deleted their account. It's impractical to be able to remove all traces of

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