PM/Email Suggestion....

[dave29]

I am a member of a few other forums, and when I get PM's the email notification will show me what the actual PM is, which is pretty cool when you are getting emails on a BlackBerry. On here, it does not show the Private message within the email.

Is there anyway to change this in the UserCP so that the message shows up in the email, or is this something that the Admin would have to look at possibly changing?

Thanks!

 

[Pami]

Not sure if it can be user-controlled or not. I'll point Scutter in the direction of this post so he can answer that part more definitively since he knows more about the vBulletin features than I do.

However, we did *used* to have the whole PM show in the email notification, but so many people were replying directly to the emails (which come from INGO, not the sending user's email, and which clearly stated "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL") instead of logging in and replying to the PM, that the server was getting clogged up with all these replies that were just going to a junkbox rather than actually replying to the original user. (follow that?)

Short answer: unlikely to change this.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

But there's no reason you couldn't configure IMAP/POP3 settings on-server not to accept incoming mail, surely? Then it wouldn't be a waste of bandwidth when users inevitably tried to respond from their respective inboxes...

???

 

[dave29]

Not sure if it can be user-controlled or not. I'll point Scutter in the direction of this post so he can answer that part more definitively since he knows more about the vBulletin features than I do.

However, we did *used* to have the whole PM show in the email notification, but so many people were replying directly to the emails (which come from INGO, not the sending user's email, and which clearly stated "DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL") instead of logging in and replying to the PM, that the server was getting clogged up with all these replies that were just going to a junkbox rather than actually replying to the original user. (follow that?)

Short answer: unlikely to change this.

I gotcha, makes sense, but sure would be cool to change back.

 

[spasmo]

But there's no reason you couldn't configure IMAP/POP3 settings on-server not to accept incoming mail, surely? Then it wouldn't be a waste of bandwidth when users inevitably tried to respond from their respective inboxes...

???

That may be true, but then the sender doesn't know that the end user didn't receive the mail. It is just simpler to have it the way it is.

 

[CSK22]

Dang it! This is exactly how I want it, I just would think its common sense not to respond to an email to INGO. Especially if the emails said "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL NO ONE WILL RECEIVE IT"

 

[redneckmedic]

I wonder how stong our (crackberry) numbers are?!? Maybe we can overthrow the current admin with a cyber muntiny!

 

[Scutter01]

Dang it! This is exactly how I want it, I just would think its common sense not to respond to an email to INGO. Especially if the emails said "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL NO ONE WILL RECEIVE IT"

You would think so, wouldn't you? And yet, prior experience has proven that line of reasoning to be incorrect.