this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024

237 points (94.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35910 readers

980 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

237

Is there an obvious technical reason why the major email services (Outlook, gmail, etc) can't seem to limit recipients from Replying-All? (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Why not just have an easy button that you can click saying Do Not Allow Reply All?

I know that there are some ways you can limit reply-all availability, like in the URL linked here. But there's a note: If recipients open this email in other mail applications except Microsoft Outlook, such as opening on web page via web mailbox, they can reply all this email.

I'm semi-tech savvy but I'm no programmer. It feels like it should be easy to do, so either I'm totally wrong or email services are really missing out on a great thing they could do.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 110 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Step 1: draft an email to yourself

Step 2: put all recipients in the BCC

Step 3: now "reply all" does jack shit

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I use BCC semi-frequently at work because it prevents all kinds of (mostly unintentional) annoyances from my coworkers. Mostly with automated emails related to reports and/or our case management system. BCC is your best friend when used selectively.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Just don't use it for mass mailing external addresses. That'll get you on a blacklist faster than you'd think.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Just don't use it for mass mailing external addresses. That'll get you on a blacklist faster than you'd think.

What do you mean by this?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Putting a bunch of recipients in bcc to send out mass mail is what spammers do.
So if you also do this, you'll look like a spammer.
This may lead to your emails getting rejected by various mail servers in the future.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Ohhh, thanks for the info!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

My favorite thing is when I notice the chain is emailing people who don’t need to see it and Reply All after moving them to BCC (I add a note saying “moved X to BCC” for transparency).

People love me :-)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

At my office people tend to go way overboard with the number of CCs. I understand the need for communication and coordination on some things. But so much of it is just unnecessary-reflexive CYA and dilution of responsibility.

[–] [email protected] 79 points 4 days ago

The solution is if you're sending a mass email that shouldn't be replied to you use BCC. So it's really the sender's fault

Outlook does give a warning now if you're sending to a distro list

[–] [email protected] 84 points 4 days ago

Here's my snarky take on it:

Because it's not the job of the mail client to decide what parts of the protocol should be hidden from stupid users.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 days ago (2 children)

As the other commentors have said, this isn't a problem with email services, it's a problem with email users. If you put all the addresses in the "To:" or "CC:" boxes, its because you want someone to Reply All. If you want to prevent that, put all the recipients in the BCC box.

Its a good idea, but fortunately someone already solved it a good while back. Now we just need a PSA to teach people to stop cramming everyone in the wrong box.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago

It is slightly the fault of the email clients for the sender that often don't show BCC by default. It probably would be reasonable for email clients to put a warning up if people are sending to a large number of people without using BCC.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

People in my organization do this, and it's great. The only downside to that is when you want recipients to know exactly who else the email was sent to. Not super common, in my experience, but it does occur.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

When I do bcc to a big list, I describe the distribution in the email header. Like "To: all users of the xxx application" or "To: All Engineering employees at the yyy site."

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My wife and I were doing big renovations on our home and were dealing with lots of contractors. I would email them and include my wife’s email. Yet every contractor failed to press reply all when responding so my wife was constantly left out of the loop

It turns out people just don’t care to think about or understand basic technology.

This stuff really needs to be taught in school (like how we used to have typing and business communication classes)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

I kind of think that contractors not being well versed in digital things is to be expected.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

When your recipient can "reply all", that means you've exposed every recipient's email address to all recipients.
At that point, "reply all" is just a convenience, without it they could just copy-paste the email addresses manually.

If you want to suppress that, don't show everyone the email address of everyone else.
For internal mail, you can use BCC. For external, use a mailer service.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The way to do this is to use a mailing list that only allows a limited number of people to send emails to it. You could do this automatically when someone clicked a “Prohibit Reply All” button, but such a feature is unnecessary if you use mailing lists configured that way by default.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That basically means sending the same email over and over but with one recipient per email

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That isn’t what it means at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago

Yes, it is precisely what mailing lists do.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

at my last job, someone from corporate sent out a mass email to literally everyone in the company (thousands of people) without using BCC and that chain ended up lasting for weeks before someone higher up eventually said that further reply alls will be punished lmao

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago (4 children)

I worked for a startup that got bought by Oracle. Five whole years without a reply-all storm, but the first week we had hundreds of people reply all and it was hilarious watching the admins try and fail to convince people to stop replying all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

I've pointed out that this issue could arrise so many times to companies with the all staff email. Every time they push back on wanting to define limited senders, "we don't think it's an issue/no one would do that!" Until someone sends an inappropriate email to the whole company, then it's suddenly IT's fault.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

the admins should not be the ones convincing. Its the managers who have to wrangle behavior like that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Most of the people replying-all were managers

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

ah but you see even managers have mangers. I mean if the behavior goes all the way to ceo then its just company culture at that point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

its just company culture at that point

Considering it was Oracle I'd go with this

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Wonder what the back end software is there. With Exchange reply-all storms are a thing of the past. I don’t have to convince anyone of anything to stop a reply all storm. Takes 2 minutes of setting up a transport rule. But the admin needs to be experienced enough to know that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It was Oracle so they probably have a terrible internal email server that will have reply-all storm protection in a year or two.

I was working with the customer service software devs to migrate my team from Salesforce's Desk.com (because Oracle hates Salesforce) and they said it would take 18 months to make a dropdown that you could type in and select a macro for a ticket. Eventually they gave up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Is there any other way to describe Lotus?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Enough said. You have my sympathy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I just talked to an oracle employee. They are using outlook/exchange/teams now and have moved on from Beehive.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

The correct response is to reply all when people start bitching. I can usually throw in an "unsubcribe" request in a separate email.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

At my work we have something in place that prevents somebody from sending to more than 50 recipients but we control our own mail servers and know how many people are in the largest department

Basically, things like this exist but aren't necessarily intuitive to set up and defaults would require contextual knowledge

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

you think thats bad. group texts automatically send to all. It doesn't even default to just replying to the last person to send to you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

This is correct. Any message sent to a group, should reply to the group by default.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Yeah for real, fuck SMS protocol for omitting basic quality of life features developed decades prior.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

We brought on a man in his mid 50s. He knows the work and doesn't complain about long hard hours. The problem is he can barely work his iPhone let alone a laptop. I'm just a team lead so I don't need to deal with his computer shit really, but I learned quickly that I couldn't put him on group texts. He cannot tell the difference between a group text and a regular text.

"Don't know why you're asking me"

"You should talk to X about that"

"X" was in the group text as was his boss. After that I just took him off the group texts for the rest of the project and sent him need to know info separately.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They can, and do give the option for Enterprise support but not public/personal accounts. You will need to bcc if you don't want others replying.

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com/forum/all/preventing-reply-all-on-internal-e-mail-chain/5f0344fd-1fed-43c7-88e7-41010e085c2a

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Yeah, I used to manage a Google account for a school district. I was able to disable the reply all for certain groups. My solution was to disable it for all groups except for one that I specifically created to allow it. The only members of that group had to be allowed in through a vote of our little tech committee which consisted of me and various upper level admins.

It worked quite well and it was hilarious listening to the students bitch that I had locked them out of one of the pranks they wanted to do.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Why?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Is this from that one about that lunch thing where people ignored when told to only reply to that one guy. It gave me a bit of enjoyment this week.

load more comments