"No email" will be far less problematic. People who have opted to limit their incoming email in a high-traffic group will not appreciate suddenly being inundated with dozens of emails and having to

I think I'm beginning to see what happened. My theory: 1. Haitianploitics direct added the trap address. [Personal Note: This is where some indication of Premium/Enterprise status on a group's home

I would lean toward No Email as being less problematic. (Someone suddenly getting a lot of traffic unexpectedly when they were getting none, without any action on their part, is going to lead to

It would be nice if they'd tell us what the trap address was so groups.io could ban it. Bruce

Ken -- Bouncing is an account status, not a subscription status. For this reason accounts can [and often do] start bouncing in response to activity in a group that is not yours. Regards, Bruce

I wrote to Spamcop, to a reference on the web :

I had this happen today to subscribers on several lists simultaneously even though no messages had been sent when the bounce notice from spamcop was recorded on the activity log. ken

Hi Mark, I just found out that there are two (or three?) more places where the new NoEmail & SpecialNotice assignment needs to also reset the FO settings, as they still allow you to "set" your

Christos et al, I couldn’t reproduce my problem, the one Mark fixed, but I did want to say (1) my issue was not that I was FO and No Email. The problem was that I was showing No Email in the

I’ve tried to reproduce this and can’t. It seems everything is working as expected. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours,

Mark, I just tested this with my beta subscription, which normally is Indiv+FO+FF+AFR. I selected No email, and the code reset my message selection to All Messages. Before hitting

IMO it comes down to the intent of the member, i.e., what they had in mind (or thought was going to happen) when they originally set their settings to FO+... or AFR, regardless of the

On second thought I think going with the FO might be best. If someone starts receiving emails they don't want, they will notice and can easily fix it by going to No Email. But if they are missing

Since you don't know which option they set last (as you do in the context of the recent changes, so that the last one takes precedence), I don't think it matters one way or the other. -- J Messages

I can see going both ways as well. Chances are whichever you do will be 'wrong' for about half the people. ;>) My choice would be to follow the No Email/Special Notices Only setting to get

Mark, Thanks. No, I doubt that I could get screwed up again. :-) I’m probably fine with that change (not home at the moment to check but will soon). My point was that unless the

For the one subscription in question, I just went into your Subscription page, and hit Save. That changed the database so that it had valid values. Can you now change it so that it no longer has valid

Hi All, I will go into the database and fix up subscriptions that have configurations that don't work. But I'm not sure which way to change things. Specifically, this is for subscriptions that are

Mark, Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if by "fix existing subscriptions" you mean make the changes retroactive, I don't think it's a matter of that. Even after you fix existing subscriptions with the

What is happening is, when the Subscription page is loaded, we 'fix' the settings as they appear on the web page. We don't make any changes to the database at that time. That's why you're seeing one