Janet_Catlady: I have always found this a bit annoying. In my group, moderators routinely send a solicit (in the form of a standard notice) to pending members who haven't introduced themselves yet. Th

#bug

You don’t understand my issue with this. But thanks.

#suggestion

You don't need to see the email address. You start a reply to a post from a group member and then choose whether it's private or not. The focus needs to be on replying to the correct post and the Grou

#suggestion

That already exists in Settings > Features: Regards Andy

#suggestion

It would be so helpful to be able to moderate who can create new albums. There is no way to stop every member from willy nilly adding albums, resulting in duplicates and even inappropriate albums. Ple

#suggestion

I (and I'm sure others) would advice against that, it's there out of the way for a good purpose. We mostly interact on the leftmost area of the screen so it's safer to have them on the right out of th

#suggestion

Maybe it would make sense to just do away with the button next to "Discard" and just have two buttons on the left. Click one and your reply gets sent to the group. Click the other and your reply gets

#suggestion

Ah-ha. That was something I completely missed. My eye was trained on the right where the "Private" button is located. (Speaking of which, why is the "Private" button located on the right next to the "

#suggestion

Except when it says "Reply to Author" (which is what shows up in my group, whose "Reply To" setting set to "Sender"). I think the web-based and email-based group/sender workflows could stand an overal

#suggestion

Look to the left. It will say Reply to Group in green or Reply to Sender in blue, depending on where it will go. Duane

#suggestion

What I meant was that all you have to do to see it is to bcc yourself. That's what I always do, and I do that SOLELY for the purpose of verifying it went to the right place. It's hidden "by design" bu

#suggestion

Good points. FYI, hiding the recipient's email address might be by design. I haven't kept up with this, but don't groups obscure the sender's address from view? I thought they did. If they do, then th

#suggestion

For various reasons, I don't use the web UI, but what you describe is the way that Thunderbird works: It is even smart enough to look for a List-Post header in the email and if it finds it, changes th

#suggestion

The worst problem for me w private replies is that until you actually click “send,” you have no way of verifying the email address to know that it’s going to the right person. I usually resort to scro

#suggestion

Makes sense. I think whatever it is, it should mirror the email footer, which right now says "Reply To Group" and "Reply To Sender." \ Pete

#suggestion

Yes - and I wonder if "Sender only" would be better as well, in both the online and email versions. Andy

#suggestion

I agree and I've had a few members who were thoroughly confused by this. I think a clearer construction would be two radio buttons, one for "Group" and one for "Sender" (since the word "Sender" is use

#suggestion

I rarely ever send Private replies. But when I do, I have a problem: It's hard for me to tell when the message will be Private, and when it won't. In both cases, there is a "Private" button near the l

#suggestion

This is a reply to an old thread, because the same thing happened again. Not fixed yet. What I did: I wrote a reply in a group using the web interface, then clicked the green "Reply to Group" button t

#bug

I just recently noticed that #cal-reminders contain an invite.ics file as an attachment. In fact, not just one, but two. I thought only #cal-invites were supposed to have these. Although they're small

#suggestion