# Alternative subject for group pm email notifications

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/alternative-subject-for-group-pm-email-notifications/57158
**Category:** Feature
**Created:** [2017 年2 月 9 日 11:48 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/alternative-subject-for-group-pm-email-notifications/57158 "2017-02-09T11:48:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### 作者： ![alehandrof](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/alehandrof/32/119526_2.png) [@alehandrof](https://meta.discourse.org/u/alehandrof)
#### 发布日期： [2017 年2 月 9 日 18:43 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/alternative-subject-for-group-pm-email-notifications/57158/4 "2017-02-09T18:43:19Z")

</div>

Sorry to be the spoil sport.

One idea would be to check: if the message is addressed to only group then go with `[Reps Leadership] Test for Discourse`. Otherwise use `[Group PM] Test for Discourse`. I don’t like the variance, but it’s the only way I could think of salvaging @LeoMcA’s idea.

Another idea is to ditch the usage of “P” entirely and not try and disambiguate by the number of recipients a message has. Just call everything messages:

`[Message] Test for Discourse`

In my [summary of this issue](https://meta.discourse.org/t/email-notification-recipients-unclear-when-pm-is-sent-to-multiple-users/26934/26) this modifies (1). Which means that (2), clarifying recipients in the email, needs to be very clear.

Basecamp gets by with a byline in the footer. I’d start there. Let’s roll it out to our groups and see what catches fire 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/alternative-subject-for-group-pm-email-notifications/57158)._