When you see something like: The Groups.io Team <xyz+owner@groups.io> do you immediately think, "Oh, that's a message from the owner that they sent," or, "That's an automated message"? Most of us will

Sorry, Duane, this is a legitimate discussion. And it has nothing to do with shooting down a suggestion. There are technical issues that have been under discussion and that deserve airing. I stand by

#suggestion

Except it doesn't. The request to remove the original message from the locked message eliminates "the payload" as described entirely. That payload exists today, and could be exploited and would be if

#suggestion

Sharon, what follows is not, in any way, intended as an argument with what you've said but really reinforcing its core points while tossing out a few of the "around the edges" assertions. I am in my m

Personally, I don't like the use of all caps because it is considered yelling in cyber parlance. Yet, I like the idea you have. The use of bold, italic, and/or underline as appropriate in the phrases

Locking topics is a basic function under any forum/e-mail system that I have used over the course of decades. It needs to work. No one is proposing "security by obscurity." The fact, and it is a fact,

#suggestion

I agree that there's very little value in including the member's message in the bounce message back when a topic is locked. I also agree that it would be nice to have the ability to customize a group'

#suggestion

This also ties in, and pretty directly, with another feature request I made: Hide Topic Function The need to hide a topic, per se, is separate from this topic. But the fact that one cannot delete a to

#suggestion

Being someone who deals with spam management on a daily basis, I have to say that I find the idea that spammers would do what is proposed highly, very highly, unlikely. It's not something that would b

#suggestion

About which, for the record, we're in absolute agreement (or very near, there might be a couple of the "innocuous" ones I might pre-check - and I'd make that an owner setup function for the group). It

Serious question: Is that even what happens now? My perception, based on this topic and other related ones, is that the group owner creates/selects "the default slate of Moderator permissions" that ar

This is the crux of the discussion, and I see nothing in Bruce's former suggestion that conflicts with mine. By default, unless a group owner chooses to mask, moderators should know what they can and

I always envision "control words" as being stripped out. What appears in public is only the remainder of the original message body.

#suggestion

And, a big +1 to that. Not that it will surprise anyone that's been around here for a while, least of all you, but my finally "getting" that latter case internalized took a while. There are requests f

Hello All, I was shocked to find that the membership can "like by e-mail" via replying with either "+1" or "like" and equally shocked to learn that there is no way to lock a topic via e-mail. I am goi

#suggestion

I understand and support that guideline, and try to follow it. That being said, there is a fine line between "debating usefulness" and discussing just what features in a proposed feature suggestion mi

My only concern about that is the nightmare it makes for implementation, and given that most groups have very few moderators in sheer number, it is not at all difficult for an owner to select (or dese

And if you can't dispatch of "bad fits" just as you hire 'em on, you (the generic you) are not a good manager (owner, in this case). It's a part of the job. It is up to managers not to perpetuate the

You can bet there will be some group owners who will object to this, and strenuously. The answer to that would be to make the "display unavailable permissions stippled" option something they can turn

Another head scratcher. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it doesn't go with the medium. It's an insane workaround. I hate the Like function to begin with (and not only with regard to Groups