Ok i see what is your problem. The problem is that i am doing template edits 'on the fly' your Styles ar so heavy modificated, that the string i am trying to replace (to change the standard report post link into a link to my report pm function) can not be found anymore.

BUMP. This is an awesome hack/concept. Any news?

This is the same as spyware to me.

There won't be an update for at least 2 weeks i think, i am over my ears in RL stuff (work and family) until at least thursday. I doubt however that the email feature will be the first thing i will add, must do some research before i will start that.
And that is a very unasked for remark, and a very strange comparison. Spyware is spying on you without you informaing about it. With my hack there must always be a privacy notice that will inform members that PM's can be read.

The priivacy thing is OK, it's probably good cause if someone doesn't like it then they can't sic the ACLU on you because you told them already...

Mmm... I would add one simple thing : You don't like it, don't use it ? Whats the big deal with discussion privacy etc. ? You have a choice, do you ?

Just adding my opinion, for what it's worth, that I would never install this hack with those requirements. Appreciate the effort but as I know I am far from the only one who feels this way I fear it's mostly going to waste.

What requirements you are talking about? That i want either the standard privacy notice as supplie by the hack to be shown, or a paragraph in your board policies to cover reading PM's?

If both are a problem to you, then yes, this is not the hack for you.

I agree with Marco. It is his perrogative as to what requirements he wants in exchange for using his hack. You should respect that, even if you don't agree with it.

I do respect that, and I appreciate his work. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand - as a coder, I would think he would appreciate feedback on his hack good or bad as long as it is constructive and not mere message board flaming. My opinion is that these requirements - either linking back here or having an existing privacy policy that in the sole opinion of the coder, who is not an attorney, is an acceptable substitute is not acceptable to me. I feel this entire "read members private messages" debate is net-lawyerism at it's worst and this kind of requirement is reacting too far in the other direction to it.

That said, it's my own opinion, and the coder can do what he or she wishes. I'm not implying he should change his hack because of it - that's an informed decision only he can make.