Personal Messages (PM's)

[Willo]

I've searched for the "Feedback Board" but come up empty handed. Do we still have such a Board?

Anyway I just have a query regarding Personal Messages (PM's) some refer to them as Private Messages, but I think they are "Personal" rather than "Private". Is this the correct definition?
Just on that topic, there is now a "Locked Thread" that was under the "Rumours" topic. During the discussion there was reference to the ramifications of posting names etc that hadn't yet been made public (or proven to be true) via newspaper or other media that may be defined as defamatory and result in legal action.

I read on another forum that in a past case, posts could be requested/ordered/subpoened but also that PM's could be.
Now I'm sure whether this is true or not. So just a few questions to the Mods, do the PM's sit in an archive somewhere, are they accessible and if they are by whom?

I only mention this because a few posters asked for info by PM. I've probably done the same in the past, but just want to check on the ramifications. (I know this is probably different from Mods requesting to view the information to check on the legal implications.)

 

[Rosy]

I've searched for the "Feedback Board" but come up empty handed. Do we still have such a Board?

The "Feedback" board was removed. This board can be used for Feedback if people wish to leave it. Your post is more technical so this would be the appropriate board anyway.

Anyway I just have a query regarding Personal Messages (PM's) some refer to them as Private Messages, but I think they are "Personal" rather than "Private". Is this the correct definition?

Not sure there's a correct definition. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. They are sent privately rather than on the forum and they are sent to personal individuals rather than to everyone on the forum.

Just on that topic, there is now a "Locked Thread" that was under the "Rumours" topic. During the discussion there was reference to the ramifications of posting names etc that hadn't yet been made public (or proven to be true) via newspaper or other media that may be defined as defamatory and result in legal action.

I read on another forum that in a past case, posts could be requested/ordered/subpoened but also that PM's could be.

It is true. Posts are there for anyone to see though so not sure why they'd be ordered or subpoenared though. I posted similar about PMs on the thread you refer to.

I was contacted by the lawyers for information in regard to the AFL vs the media in regard to a court case and asked about posts on PRE. That info discussed here obviously was in mainstream media. I was also notified that discussion in PMs can be accessed and used for legal purposes. It's not acceptable to hint at something then send details by PM to those who request it.

So just a few questions to the Mods, do the PM's sit in an archive somewhere, are they accessible and if they are by whom?

Everything, including PMs, posted on forums would be on a database somewhere. The computer crime squad, Internet providers and hosts are some examples of who could access the information.

 

[Willo]

Thanks for the reply.
So just a notice to posters, they should take care of what is PM'd as well.

 

[Rosy]

Thanks for the reply.
So just a notice to posters, they should take care of what is PM'd as well.

I already discussed that on the thread you referred to.

It's not forum specific. Same could be said for deleted posts and blogs and emails and social media. Any information can be accessed by the authorities if need be. I doubt it's an issue for too many just the same. It would have to be a mighty serious matter for it to happen.

 

[Willo]

I already discussed that on the thread you referred to.

It's not forum specific. Same could be said for deleted posts and blogs and emails and social media. Any information can be accessed by the authorities if need be. I doubt it's an issue for too many just the same. It would have to be a mighty serious matter for it to happen.

I agree it would have to be a serious matter. But all the same I'm betting some posters would be unaware of the fact that it would be accessible though.

 

[U2Tigers]

in regards to personal messages, how many messages makes an inbox full.

 

[Rosy]

I just checked and found there's no maximum limit. Thanks for the reminder. I'll discuss it with tester and decide on a limit to set. Maybe 20 or 50. I don't know if that will remove existing PMs or just prevent new ones once the maximum is reached. I'd advise everyone to do some inbox housework just in case.

 

[Rosy]

in regards to personal messages, how many messages makes an inbox full.

On reflection that's an interesting question out of the blue. Do you have an issue that makes you think your inbox is full? I'm very guilty of not emptying mine and it has thousands in it. Reminder to self to delete the lot to ease up database space.

 

[Willo]

in regards to personal messages, how many messages makes an inbox full.

On reflection that's an interesting question out of the blue. Do you have an issue that makes you think your inbox is full? I'm very guilty of not emptying mine and it has thousands in it. Reminder to self to delete the lot to ease up database space.

When I tried to send a couple of PM's to a couple of posters, it bounces back and says their "Inbox" is full. It doesn't say "blocked" just "full".
How do we contact people if that comes up, just wait until it's cleaned up or pm's deleted? Or can mods send them an email notifying them they can't be contacted by pm?

 

[Rosy]

There was no limit when U2 asked the question. It's since been changed to a limit of 20 as a trial. As I've already said I don't know how it works but as I've suggested people who keep messages should have a bit of a clean up of their inboxes. Just storing them because we don't get around to emptying them out, and I put my hand up there, just adds unnecessary content clogging the already extensive database.

 

[Willo]

PM's (personal or private message)

I have a few questions regarding the use of pm's (personal or private message, there seems to be some confusion over the actual terminology)
When sending a pm, apart from the sender and recipient who is able to access or read another person's pm.
1. Is the site administrator able to access or read another persons pm without them being aware of it?
2. Is a moderator able to access or read another person's pm without them being aware of it?
3. If there is an "overflow" of pm's such as when a warning that a recipient's "inbox is full" does that bounce on to a mod or site administrator?
4. Has the "inbox is full, needs emptying" quantity changed? Is it still 20?) I'm not sure whether posters are aware of this or for the need for housekeeping to delete "old" messages so that they can receive pm's.)

Answers would be greatly appreciated and may clarify a few things.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Re: PM's (personal or private message)

I have a few questions regarding the use of pm's (personal or private message, there seems to be some confusion over the actual terminology)
When sending a pm, apart from the sender and recipient who is able to access or read another person's pm.
1. Is the site administrator able to access or read another persons pm without them being aware of it?
2. Is a moderator able to access or read another person's pm without them being aware of it?
3. If there is an "overflow" of pm's such as when a warning that a recipient's "inbox is full" does that bounce on to a mod or site administrator?
4. Has the "inbox is full, needs emptying" quantity changed? Is it still 20?) I'm not sure whether posters are aware of this or for the need for housekeeping to delete "old" messages so that they can receive pm's.)

Answers would be greatly appreciated and may clarify a few things.

Would be shocked & disturbed if PM's can be read by anyone other than the sender/recipient willo- so surely not.

 

[Browndog]

Re: PM's (personal or private message)

Would be shocked & disturbed if PM's can be read by anyone other than the sender/recipient willo- so surely not.

Prepare to be shocked then.

 

[Rosy]

Re: PM's (personal or private message)

You also started a thread about PMs earlier this year willo. ( I will merge this) There have been several threads, and endless explanations from myself and tester, about the matter over the years.

I find it hard to think those questions are innocent and random. Do you actually have any reason/evidence to suggest your PMs have been read? That's the underlying feeling I read in your questioning. I don't understand why it's an ongoing issue to you where others don't indicate the same concerns.

I would advise everyone not to send sensitive information by a forum PM system. The info is there somewhere for those with the time, knowledge and access to the database. The admins and mods here don't have that I've been advised before that information in PMs before can be accessed for legal purposes...as you're well aware of willo. It would be extremely naive to think otherwise.

If anyone has concerns over the PM system used on PRE there is info available from the SMF techs if anyone is interested enough to do a search.

1. Is the site administrator able to access or read another persons pm without them being aware of it?

NO

2. Is a moderator able to access or read another person's pm without them being aware of it?

NO

3. If there is an "overflow" of pm's such as when a warning that a recipient's "inbox is full" does that bounce on to a mod or site administrator?

NO

4. Has the "inbox is full, needs emptying" quantity changed? Is it still 20?) I'm not sure whether posters are aware of this or for the need for housekeeping to delete "old" messages so that they can receive pm's.)

(a)YES and (b) NO. (From memory it was increased to 50)

Now a couple of questions for you.

Why do you ask these ongoing questions and what are the few things that may be clarified? Your PMs haven't been read by the site admins or moderators. I just don't understand why you feel the need to repeatedly question the PM system.

 

[poppa x]

Why do you ask these ongoing questions and what are the few things that may be clarified? Your PMs haven't been read by the site admins or moderators. I just don't understand why you feel the need to repeatedly question the PM system.

I'm not speaking on Willo's behalf, but would like to make the point that all people have different perspectives on privacy of their posts / data.
Some don't care and others are paranoid about it. There's no right or wrong opinion on the subject.
If you own up to being in the paranoid or concerned camp, then the best solution is to (a) be careful of what you post and (b) don't send PM's that are controversial - unless you trust the recipient.
In the past, I've sent Rosy some PM's that I wouldn't want on the public forum, but I did so because I trusted Rosy to keep it under wraps.
I would never have sent the same info to any other poster on this forum.
You have to choose who you you trust and who you don't. And if you don't trust or know the recipient then don't send PM's that you wouldn't want seen publicly. And be aware (as Rosy said) that the Mr Plod and his legal mates can access the archives including PM's.

 

[Willo]

I'm not speaking on Willo's behalf, but would like to make the point that all people have different perspectives on privacy of their posts / data.
Some don't care and others are paranoid about it. There's no right or wrong opinion on the subject.
If you own up to being in the paranoid or concerned camp, then the best solution is to (a) be careful of what you post and (b) don't send PM's that are controversial - unless you trust the recipient.
In the past, I've sent Rosy some PM's that I wouldn't want on the public forum, but I did so because I trusted Rosy to keep it under wraps.
I would never have sent the same info to any other poster on this forum.
You have to choose who you you trust and who you don't. And if you don't trust or know the recipient then don't send PM's that you wouldn't want seen publicly. And be aware (as Rosy said) that the Mr Plod and his legal mates can access the archives including PM's.

Totally agree with that Poppa
In answer to rosy's questions.. I thought we'd changed servers in the past and wasn't sure if that was still the case. As far as clarifying, that's why I asked the questions that you answered.
No I don't have evidence my or others pm's have been read that was why I asked.

 

[Rosy]

...
No I don't have evidence my or others pm's have been read that was why I asked.

You asked because you have no evidence of it happening? Ok. Hope your mind if finally put to rest. :hihi

We've been with SMF since about a month after PRE was first launched...over 10 years. The PM situation has been discussed and questioned heaps in that time. It has never changed and because SMF are against admins having access to PMs I doubt it ever will.

 

[Rosy]

I'm not speaking on Willo's behalf, but would like to make the point that all people have different perspectives on privacy of their posts / data.
Some don't care and others are paranoid about it. There's no right or wrong opinion on the subject.
If you own up to being in the paranoid or concerned camp, then the best solution is to (a) be careful of what you post and (b) don't send PM's that are controversial - unless you trust the recipient.
In the past, I've sent Rosy some PM's that I wouldn't want on the public forum, but I did so because I trusted Rosy to keep it under wraps.
I would never have sent the same info to any other poster on this forum.
You have to choose who you you trust and who you don't. And if you don't trust or know the recipient then don't send PM's that you wouldn't want seen publicly. And be aware (as Rosy said) that the Mr Plod and his legal mates can access the archives including PM's.

Yep to me being paranoid probably equates to a concerned mind. The very fact PMs have a "Report to Moderator" option should indicate they aren't necessarily meant to be kept private. Anyone can report or pass on the contents of a PM. Abuse, harassment and breaching the site rules is no more acceptable in PMs than it is on the forum. Same rules apply.

Thanks for the kind words. Trust means a lot to me.

 

[Willo]

You asked because you have no evidence of it happening? Ok. Hope your mind if finally put to rest. :hihi

We've been with SMF since about a month after PRE was first launched...over 10 years. The PM situation has been discussed and questioned heaps in that time. It has never changed and because SMF are against admins having access to PMs I doubt it ever will.

Well I'm glad you found it amusing. If I had evidence I wouldn't have needed to ask the questions, that's fairly obvious
Given Anfield & Browndogs replies it certainly was worth asking a couple of questions on the matter.

 

[Rosy]

If I had evidence I wouldn't have needed to ask the questions, that's fairly obvious
...

As opposed to the thousands of other site members without any evidence who haven't felt the "need" to suddenly, and publicly, ask similar questions. Each to their own.