Just re-checked, and the Groups.io signature is nowhere to be found in messages I send by e-mail. Some have my regular Gmail signature, others nothing but the text of the message I sent (formatted, of

The From: field for my own responses shows my Gmail address. I have checked this via "Show Original" in Gmail's webmail. The other messages were from a non-Gmail user, and I do not believe these were

I have discovered something that could be a bug or could be a feature. Since I use the e-mail interface almost never this is the first time I've run into it. In this case, the forum is Group_Help. I h

Just wanted to report that I got three of "the big, yellow banners" this morning in Gmail for Group_Help messages (which is one of those low-traffic groups that I actually have set to deliver e-mail t

I have no idea of the "under the hood" ramifications. Just thought I'd ask to see if it were possible. There's a reason I left software development 20 years ago! ;-)

#suggestion

The subject pretty much says it. The vast majority of other forums I'm on, and have been on, support it. As a result I have a trove of click-through links in files formatted in BBCODE that I'd love to

#suggestion

Indeed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Why choose to sign up to use a medium, intentionally designed as a fusion of e-mail list and online forum, if you adamantly don't want one half of s

#suggestion

Which is what I said at the outset, and still think is the best idea. Group Owners or Moderators should not be subject to any of the strictures that can be put on topics since they, themselves, are th

#suggestion

And that's generally an option on most forums with regard to private messaging, whether said private messaging comes via e-mail or an internal messaging system or, as is also often the case, both. One

Duane, Thank you very much for having taken the time to post this. It's well-nigh impossible to keep up with the many "under the hood" changes at Groups.io, particularly if they're not something one u

#suggestion

Like I said, I have no objection to this. That being said, I don't know that the "pick and choose from among a menu for ala carte functions" is the way I'd go. I'd be more inclined to go with more rol

Bob, Thanks for the words of support. One of the groups on which I'm a moderator on groups.io has me do one, and only one thing: manage the archive. This is by agreement (no formal paperwork necessary

Not that I have any objection whatsoever to having a pick and choose "powers collection" for moderators if Mark were to create such, but it still leaves the question: Why do you not trust your moderat

Most do and would. The distinction is much more one of typesetting, where their length is ever so slightly different. I know of very few people who don't interpret a small black line between two words

And when you add in the figleafing of e-mail addresses in the forum interface, it becomes a real nightmare. I cannot count the number of times where someone has, through the e-mail interface, offered

#suggestion

Neither a "permitted" or "forbidden list," alone, is sufficient.

I know you weren't responding to me, but I want to say I couldn't agree more. That being said, I would say that most people, and I do mean the vast majority, recognize spam on sight, and would not con

Shal, An additional factor, unless I'm just inventing this from the whole cloth, is that group owners can choose to have private directories, in which case there's no way to establish off-group contac

#suggestion

I have not actually encountered a situation prior to today where this would have mattered to me, but now I have, and I'll use the actual example. Mark has locked the topic on disallowed groups, and al

#suggestion

All kidding aside, that's not spamming, that's targeted harassment. Yes, the target is big, but not indiscriminate.