I like this idea, but what I'm more often seeing requests for in GMF is the opposite -- the option for a disabled message archive, and an email-only interface. Both have their merits and from where I

Received from Shal Farley at 9/27/2018 11:55 PM UTC: I think calling for a "via web only" group begs the question when what is really desired is a group in which all members remain anonymous. It

J, Fair enough. One other thing that I think you do not want to copy from the Yahoo Groups feature is that an anonymous member there is anonymous even to the group managers -- not even the group

I agree, I would like to have moderators/owners be the only ones that can send attachments. Linda

p.s. I, too, avoid FB like the plague. So I'm with you there. :) -- 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

Shal, The idea of an anonymous group (as suggested here long ago, I think first by me?) is that the entire group membership is purposely anonymous so that members would not have access to each other's

J, I don't see any flaw, exactly, but the limitation of not receiving message content by email would be a bit of a show-stopper for me. So that would be my #1 pick for an alteration to your idea. Even

Shal, I said I had not thought it through but clearly, features like reply to sender and the directory would be disabled automatically. I was thinking more along the lines that there might be some

J, There are some features to think about, such as Private replies and the Email button in the Directory. The simplest answer might be to eliminate those features in such a group. Or maybe send them

Ronaldo, The primary advantage of the Yahoo Groups mechanism is that it allows email-only members to participate in the group. Their address is exposed in the outbound From field, as normal, but that

J, You could still allow members to have their usual Subscription options - the difference would be that the From: field would contain a no-reply address instead of a member's address. And of course

Yahoogroups allows groups in which people can post anonymously, if they post from the web-interface. Your proposal seems to do the same, without people having the option to show their

I'd like to have the option to set my group so that only owners and moderators can send attachments. I'd like to be able to send occasional attachments, but I don't want all members to have the same

The idea is not to even send the emails. The emails are what give people access to other members’ email addresses. As for whether any aspects of the group are public or restricted, those would

I endorse that suggestion. The disappearing Wikispaces operated similarly. Posts were distributed by email but replies had to be via the website interface. That eliminates a lot of email signature

I know that this feature is on Trello and I know that Mark has loads of different requests, but I am really looking forward to see it implemented. My moderators and I spend quite a bit of time

This is a suggestion for a ‘web only’ option for groups. In a web-only group, everybody would essentially be set to either ‘no email’ or ‘special notice’. Everybody would have to access

That won't remedy the embedded sig line image problem or the W10 Mail PNG reply separator problem. Bruce

Sorry to have to bring this up over and over, but this implies the problem could be solved by extending the autotrim-feature to individual emails. groetjes,

All photo *attachments* will still show up in the Emailed Photos folder. Only the embedded images will go to the bit-bucket. Hallelujah, we's halfway there! :-) I have no problem with your sig line