I overlooked nothing.

If subscribers to any group - announcement or discussion or whatever - expect replies to go only to the admin... or to the group... or to the poster being replied to... then I think it's improper to allow the admin or a subscriber to direct them elsewhere via embedded "Reply-to:" headers. Granted any party receiving email from the group is capable of redirecting it manually, but I think Groups.io shouldn't become a party to it.

Which is worse? Subscribers replying to the admin when they think they are replying to the person in the Reply-To:, or replying to the person in the Reply-To: when they are thinking they are replying to the admin? In either case, they should really be checking who the message is going to.

In my case, no-one has ever wanted to reply to the admin, and I am talking about hundreds/thousands of messages here.

Anyone is currently capable of forwarding messages they receive to anyone they want to, and I believe that's how Groups.io should require them to handle the sort of message redirection you're asking for. That also (usually) provides a record of WHO caused the redirect. That's also a good thing.

Great theory for computer literate people. Not useful for people with poor computer skills.

Expanding on my concern... when I left Y!, I left Y! behind. Groups.io is what it is... and what it is is better by far than Y! in more areas than reliability. Groups.io can be improved - the search facility currently being discussed is one example - but I'd rather not see some of the bad aspects of Y! brought to Groups.io just because some found them convenient on Y!.

Mark obviously does not agree. He has fixed the bug already.

David

David,

What you are proposing is a discussion group afaics, but more
complicated. It would also be open to spamming I imagine.

The messages coming in through the integration can be moderated to prevent spamming; just as ordinary group messages can be.

For the other people it is simpler than a discussion group: they didn't have to join anything nor deal with extraneous messages (announcements about others). And it isn't that much more complicated for you - set up the integration and after that the group operates in a normal fashion.

The key distinction, over what you're doing, is that the others initiate the messages - which may be a bad thing if you prefer acting as curator and author of the announcements.

> The reason for using Reply-To: is that most of the members just reply

to messages, even when the content of the message states to contact
someone else. Reply-To: takes it out of their hands.

Yes, you might be changing the reply default, however although I have my groups set up to "Reply to Sender", many people do what they have to in order to reply to the group instead.

That said, I agree that your best bet is still to have your group set to "Reply to Sender", and have the person who wants the replies send the message.

What is the protection that a third party Reply-To email address wants the replies?
Why would Groups.io want to enable such a SPAMMING prone tool?

I overlooked nothing.

If subscribers to any group - announcement or discussion or whatever - expect replies to go only to the admin... or to the group... or to the poster being replied to... then I think it's improper to allow the admin or a subscriber to direct them elsewhere via embedded "Reply-to:" headers. Granted any party receiving email from the group is capable of redirecting it manually, but I think Groups.io shouldn't become a party to it.

Anyone is currently capable of forwarding messages they receive to anyone they want to, and I believe that's how Groups.io should require them to handle the sort of message redirection you're asking for. That also (usually) provides a record of WHO caused the redirect. That's also a good thing.

Expanding on my concern... when I left Y!, I left Y! behind. Groups.io is what it is... and what it is is better by far than Y! in more areas than reliability. Groups.io can be improved - the search facility currently being discussed is one example - but I'd rather not see some of the bad aspects of Y! brought to Groups.io just because some found them convenient on Y!.

I have a couple of announcement groups where I send out messages from other organisations. I want replies to go directly to the other organisation, not to me as the sender. I do not want to have to forward dozens of messages that could have gone directly to them.

In Yahoo Groups, I could put a Reply-To: header in the message I sent, and when people replied, it would go to that address.

In Groups.io, the Reply-To: seems to be stripped out of the message members get.

开云体育

I guess there's no way to know if GIO has rec'd my invite.

As Bruce said, there is:



If that grey box at the top of the In Process page says they have, they have. Otherwise you'll need to re-send. Wait at least a few hours since your latest send to give it time to register on the page.

One reason you might need to re-send is if you originally sent the invitation before having competed Step 1. Sending the invitation is Step 2.

Shal

Approvals Needed shows 3, but only showing 2 in the Pending Approval
list.

Approvals Needed shows 3, but only showing 2 in the Pending Approval list.

haha had to read that a couple times.
I'm apparently still at Step 1.
Two buttons and checkboxes are active.
I guess there's no way to know if GIO has rec'd my invite.?It's been about 48 hours.
Thanks for the insight..

To quibble, though, that's a pun on "file".? The EOF at the end of a Hollerith
deck was to indicate that the program ended there, not a file that the program
was reading.? That is, the punch card EOF is code EOF, the C style EOF is data.