Right, Chris, right after my last post I realized the same thing and hit myself over the head, thinking, "Wait. What earthly good does having a restricted group do if you don't require at least some

Brian, True about water under the bridge! And that was possibly very helpful. Just wanted you to know.-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is

I would have to disagree there. A bare application contains no information on which a moderator can make a decision about whether or not to admit an applicant to membership. It is only only the basis

J, So much water passes under the bridge in beta, and sometimes at whitewater speed, that there is no way I can keep up with it all seeing as I'm a drop in-drop out reader of beta.

Mark has referred to DMARC here so many times that I'd be stunned if he's not already doing everything necessary to pass. (Caveat, I am clueless about all DMARC issues. Just pointing that out. :) --

This message is mostly aimed at Mark. A user on one of the blind technology groups I moderate made the following two posts, and given what I know about e-mail under the hood I suspect they may have

In fact there's not even any terminology yet to refer to those two categories. Maybe (at some point, as part of an overall re-design) there could be a new setting to indicate that the group requires a

Hey Bruce, I'm not assuming that at all. I was distinguishing "pending response required" groups from "non pending-response-required" groups. And that's precisely the issue I mentioned: there's

The incorrect assumption here is that the Pending Subscription notice consists of some kind of questionnaire. In the case of my primary group, this notice is nothing more than a notification that we

LOL 😊-- 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

Or, more hopefully, the pending notice isn't sent until after they confirm. So scratch that. In fact i will try to write up some documentation for the current state of this whole thing, without

Don't feel bad about being dated. Earthink was my 4th. Mindspring was my 3rd hosting service after the 2nd one quit to go into another business. Before that there was a strange outfit at the top of

And in the case where the person applies via the web and is a non-groups.io virgin, I think you could get the even weirder case where they could return the pending questionnaire, but if they don't

Earthink is definitely blacklisting all of groups.io. I have about 15 earthink.net members. The latest soft bounce was 12/16/2018 The last hard bounce was 12/15/2016 Our message board is fairly

Thanks. (Damn, that dates me! :-) -- 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

Yes, exactly. But the problem (I'm guessing) is that there's no realistic way, at least currently, for groups.io to know which groups require a response to the pending notice. It is conceivable that

The information I found says they merged in early 2000, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EarthLink Duane

Having done a bit more "research" I have to agree. IIRC Mark's last "definitive description" of the sequence was in message 16380 of 19th March 2018, but no matter how many times I read it I finish up

Well, as a general statement no e-mail service providers should be blacklisting groups.io for spam. Since you can't get a groups.io message without having gone through the subscription process they

Posts crossed, just saw Brian’s. Brian, are EarthLink and mindspring somehow the same? I did have one bouncing mindspring member unbounce after I sent a bounce probe. -- J Messages are the sole