I've been using this for ages, and it is perfectly stable. I've recently upgraded to 3.6 RC2, and it works, but has a slight problem with the new multiple recipients and BCC thing from the PM side. Would you be able to make that change for 3.6 soon?

It shows "array" instead of the recipients, until you go into the PM via the adminCP panel. Is there a way around this?

i got a slight problem here, i've entered the userids of my fellow admins in the config.php exactly where its supposed to be, but they can't see the link in the ACP...

note: they dont have a vbulletin settings permission, but i still want them to view your hack.

Sigh. I think some of the other features of this program are useful, but I've got a big problem with having the ability to easily read PMs sent by forum users.

If anything, I'd like to see a hack that makes PMs even more secure.

Is this now okay to use on 3.5.x

-3.5.x, YES
-3.6.x, 90% YES

I agree with the fact that reading pm's is virtually, in it's most literal and metaphorical senses, snooping. PM's really should be made more secure, not less, having said that, the one element i'm very impressed with is the 'report bad pm' function. Due to the fact that the user reporting a bad message cannot actually edit it in any way gives the admin the security in knowing that the messages are 100% legitimate, thereby giving confidence in their decision making processes to ban or publicly spank offending users.

For the record, I tested this out on 3.5.4 on a month old database backup. As far as I can see, it works perfectly, however i've not tried it in a 'working condition' - as i said, it's only been used thus far on my test board. I'm not 100% whether I'll be applying it to the main forum (the real one) or not as yet. I'm still chewing on that... but the idea of reporting bad pm's (with it's 'note added' functionality) is very appealing.
I'll do the 'click install' because i ahve tried it, it works well (at least for the last hour i've been playing with it) and it has been 'installed', even if not on a fully functioning and active board.

Hey KarlM,

I hear what you're saying, and I agree to a certain degree.

However, there are certain cases where this is an invaluable feature. My users are made VERY aware that I can, and will, read any PM's I suspect of breaching my forum rules. I have 4 rules that I am not negotiable on, and those 4 rules I enforce with an iron fist. Everything and anything that happens on those forums, are my responsibility. If someone uses the PM feature to post child porn, I want to know about it before it actually gets read by the other party. I therefore installed another hack that traps PM's where certain specified keywords are triggered. Most of the times, I don't read any other PM's of any other users, except where those keywords are triggered, though.

To me, this function is absolutely necessary, simply because I'm held liable for anything that happens on my forums. I also run an online business from my site, and because of that, it's even more important that I control what gets said on my forums.

I do see how this is a moral issue, though. But IMO, it's only a moral issue when users are not aware that they are being "snooped" on. If they are aware of it, and they don't agree, they are more than welcome to not make use of the PM system. It's as easy as that.

Cheers
Firestar

I don't need to monitor all PMs sent by all members. Generally I would want to moderate PMs only when a user sends out a large numbers of PMs.

So is it possible to trigger this moderation based upon the number of PMs sent?

For example. If a member sends more than X PMs at one time (or within a given timeframe)?

Is there any update on this? Last year you wanted to code this, but had found no time yet. This would also clear the privacy issue, as with such function the admin can choose to only need to see those PM's reported by the PM Workbench.
Illegal activity by PM is a big problem / liability for forum owners. If illegal activity(trade in drugs, weapons, terrorisme, child porn, etc) is taking place on the server, this poses a direct risk to the site and the owner. I think many underestimate the risk. This extra function can counteract that risk. Due to the nature of the internet, I think it is a necessity.