Forum message limits


I see that the sending of private messages is limited to a fairly small number … Would it not be possible to increase this limit, because I do not can for the moment answer to people who ask me for my address for tags…


The limit is currently 30/day (which we already increased from 20/day) but I believe this is for creating new messages. If you are just replying to a message, that shouldn’t count for the limit. Please do tell us if that’s not the case.

We want to avoid having this number too high because it prevents potential spammers from reaching many people at once.


I imagine that for the big RRs (like the monthly 50 RR, for example) this might be a problem when the host would like to send the addresses to all the participants on the same day.

If one message is sent to multiple people, does it count as one message (that would be my guess) or several?

In any case, there are RRs when sending more than 30 different messages at the start is needed, I think.

1 Like

As I told you, I can no longer send new messages to those who tagged me. Indeed, to send my address to those who tagged me, it is each time a new message …

We can consider updating this limit if there’s no other way, but we do need to have a reasonable limit as it can be easily abused for spam.

What would be a good enough value for this?

We’d like to hear more people on this before making changes to this.


Did we have a limit on the old forum? If not: Were there any problems regarding spam? But the system was different… it was with a separate login (easy to abuse with bots), here you have to create an account on a different site and find the link to this forum (I guess not so easy to abuse with bots etc). Or were there huge problems with spam messages from real members?

edit: and is it possible do differentiate between TL0 / TL1 to TL2? Most users should be TL2 very fast!

1 Like

For myself, I think that 50 messages should be a good number. This should protect the system from professional spammers …

Good question Cassiopheia. Indeed, I had never been hindered in exchanging messages in the old forum, and it was very good that way.

The old forum didn’t have a limit per day but it also lacked proper anti-spam controls. Occasionally a spammer would come by and message a bunch of people with their URL/scam of choice.

The limit is not useful just for spammers: even a regular user can one day decide that they have the best thing ever to share and send it to a ton of people who didn’t want to receive it at all. We need to limit that too.

Again, we are open to change this — but it needs to be to a reasonable number and we need to hear it from more people first so that we don’t keep changing this by small increments.


I just find it contradictory that a forum dedicated to postcrossing limits the number of exchanges between its members, whereas it should encourage them …

So it was not a severe but rare thing…

Of course, personally I haven’t experienced it (on the Postcrossing forums)

So the question is: Is limiting the normal users necessary to prevent very rare occasions?

30 is a really low number (when replies count as messages too). Just imagine:

Someone sends a message and asks for a swap. Both don’t have online albums… so multiple messages with preferences, showing cards (not too many per reply), don’t like? showing another theme, maybe want to swap more cards… more showing, exchanging addresses… voila: 20 replies for one swap (a bit over exaggerated, but I have already had this multiple times).

1 Like

Sorry, I didn’t mean for it to sound they were very rare events.

It does not have to be severe (as in, very common) to be necessary to be prevented. A single spammer who can message a lot of people can make someone go enter their credit card on some shady place or click on the wrong link (just as an example). We want to minimize these issues instead of doing damage control when it’s already too late.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the limit is to create new messages per day and my understanding of the setting is that replies don’t count for this.

Regardless, what is being brought up by @Bolgedo is a case where he needs to send that many new separate messages to different people on a single day (as I understood it).


Indeed @paulo, I would like to send more new messages by day to different people. Or I have to tag less, do less RR and greet fewer people … It would be a shame …

one question is still not answered: When I sent one message, e.g. for a RR, to 20 people, does that count as one message or as 20 messages?


I have to send in the beginning of every month 50 messages to the participants of the Monthly Favourite Surprise RR.
This means that even a limit of 50 messages per day would not be enough for me, because then I could no longer write messages for other reasons that day.

30 messages seems quite low for round robin hosts (especially those that host multiple round robins). I understand the idea behind limiting it, but I think it could be frustrating for some hosts. I’m certain that I have sent way more than 30 messages in a single day just sending out addresses for multiple groups for multiple round robins. That wouldn’t include any additional correspondence with my fellow postcrossers for other reasons.

As others have asked, if you send a group message to multiple people - does that count as a single message or if I send one group message to 15 people, does that count as 15 messages? That would make a big difference in this conversation as well.

If you are concerned about spam and are hesitant to lift the limit too much, would the program allow for raising the limits for hosts or “veterans” of postcrossing while maintaining a general limitation? My opinion is that 30 is too low for normal everyday messages too.


I agree with my dear friends @Nordbaer and @RuhRohRaggy , this is an important question.

If a group message to 50 people counts as one message, I would think that a limit of 30 or slightly more messages per day is ample for all but the most prolific message-writers. It would also solve the problem for @Bille and others who are hosting very large RRs. We have the convenience of group messages here, which is a great improvement over the old Forum.

I think the concerns about increasing the limit are valid: If a spammer sent 30 group messages with 50 people included in each message, they could spam 1500 people per day! This is without increasing the limit.

Instead of tagging 50 times in one day, could you spread out those 50 tags over two days? You have my sincere admiration if you are able to keep up that pace of tagging and sending cards on a daily basis.

I notice that when I tagged you yesterday, you sent me your address in a message through the official site. At first I was a bit puzzled by this, but reading of your predicament here, I see that you were being sensible and resourceful. Admittedly your solution was not as convenient as being able to send unlimited messages on the Forum, but I do see Paulo’s point about spamming and the need for some restraint, especially since group messaging here makes spamming so much easier.


Thanks @maleko for answering.
Yes, it solves the problem of other hosts, but not mine.
I have to sent 50 different messages, because every participant get only 2-8 addresses of randomly selected people.
Therefore I need the possibility to send 80 messages daily (or only on this special day when I send out the addresses) to contact other users outside the RR.

1 Like

50 per day would surely be plenty of messages for me. I can’t imagine ever going above that. But the point about RR hosts is a really important one.

Could something be done with trust levels and then RR hosts could be manually given that trust level to ensure they can send enough messages to manage their RR?


Wow, 50 different messages, that’s a lot of work, dear @Bille! Just thinking off the top of my head: What if you posted on your thread when the addresses are ready, @mentioned your RR participants, and then they had the responsibility of sending you a PM? Then your replies to them wouldn’t count toward your message limit. I know it’s not the most elegant solution, but maybe it would work if the limit can’t be raised or trust levels adjusted. :thinking: