Support Forum

Mr Papa said
whoa... just reread your first post... and think we all might have overlooked something...

you said you gave them guest permission...  guests by definition are not allowed to send private messages - how could they?  they dont have an account/inbox/etc...  and if you look at the permissions panel, there is an icon next to the pm permission that says the permission is ignored for guests...

They are getting this because of the default user group mapping

but being in the guests usergroup and being identified as a guest can be two different things... 

do you have this guests usergroup mapped to the default guests group?

Yes, it is mapped to default.

do you get the same result if you try a similar dual membership but not have one of them linked to the default guests usergroup? (ie copy the guests usergroup to another usergroup and assign that new usergroup as the default usergroup for guests)... I will try to run similar testing...

I am afraid, I did not quite get you! How can I copy a user group? Do you mean 'move users to a new user group'?

If I did that, they are moved to the new user group and I would get the same but only different names.

If I remove the guests user group from their membership, they have instantly access. the same is true for any other combination of two user groups where one of them has no access to pm

Yellow Swordfish said

If I remove the guests user group from their membership, they have instantly access. the same is true for any other combination of two user groups where one of them has no access to pm

Well this actually answers the question Steve asked I believe. So can you confirm that you have actually tried this dual membership neither of which is the 'Guest' group and only one of the groups having PM permission?

If so then we can investigate the Guest user group more closely to see what factor is at play here.

Yes, it can be confirmed!

As soon as I add a second user group with no pm permission, access is disabled.

As soon as I remove the second group, access is enabled for this user.

Yellow Swordfish said
I am sorry but these two statements

...they have instantly access. The same is true for any other combination of two user groups where one of them has no access to pm.

and

As soon as I add a second user group with no pm permission, access is disabled.

contradict each other. Which is the right one please. We need to be sure what exact situation is when it comes to attempting to replicate it.

Not sure what you mean!

I wrote 'is disabled' trying to express that users do no longer have access to pm. In my eyes, this is exactly the same like statement 1:  'has no access to pm'.

As I always said: the lower permission is overriding the higher one! Or out of two contradicting permissions, the lower one wins!