Hi, If a person does not accept private messages, shouldn't he be disabled from sending private messages ? I had a situation where somebody sent me a private message and when I tried to reply, he would not accept private messages. Kinda wacky I think !!! Shashank
<b><br /><a href="http://mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Shashank Tanksali</a><br /><i><br />SCJP2,SCJD2,SCWCD<br />IBM Certified Developer - XML and Related Technologies<br />PMI Certified Project Management Professional<br /></i><br /></b>
Jive aside, I don't see this as a bug. For example, I don't want to deal with private messages, so I have them disabled. However I have an e-mail address which is publicly available instead. (I just don't want to bother checking both e-mail and private messages.) On the other hand some people (like Shashank) don't provide an e-mail address, but do allow private messages. So, how can we communicate (other than public posts)? I could send Shashank a private message, even though I prefer not to get them myself; he can send me an e-mail, even though he prefers not to receive them himself. Seems fair to me. Alternately, if I should be prevented from sending private messages, Shashank should be prevented from sending e-mails.