Real News. Real Funny.
ZAZ: Microsoft (MSFT) introduced a plug-in option on its Outlook program called NoReplyAll, which allows senders to prevent recipients from Replying All to their messages.I was about to compliment Microsoft. Then I realized they were undoing their own mistake so it doesn't count as a good deed.
ChubbyTiger: You are all replying to everyone. Please stop it hitting reply all with requests to be removed from the mail list./bcc, that is all
SineSwiper: IM is there for a reason. (And that also means you don't start using the corporate IM for vulgar comments, either.)
Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: However, I wish there was an option to Forward but automatically copy in some or all of the original recipients. People use Reply to All to add people all the time when there are attachments, but only Forward includes the original attachments.
ZAZ: The description reminds me of the job I had working on Compartmented Mode Workstation software. It was based on Unix but had security classification built in. Everything had a security label. If you tried to cut and paste it would either deny you or change the classification of the destination to match the source.It could be defeated the same ways as Exchange. Take a picture (but cameras were bigger in the 1990s). Retype (some people could type fast back then). Hack into the network (these systems required physically secure networks).
Wingchild: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: However, I wish there was an option to Forward but automatically copy in some or all of the original recipients. People use Reply to All to add people all the time when there are attachments, but only Forward includes the original attachments.Reply All, copy recipient list, close mail. Forward, paste recipient list. Inconvenient but fairly quick.Dropping attachments on replies is almost mandatory. Consider an Exchange 2010 example:1) You send a message with a 10MB attachment to a list of 20 people. - that hits your transport server's queue as a single 10MB message, then bifurcates into 20 copies each with a 10MB attachment - 200MB on the wire as it clears the queue.2) The thread is lively and people enjoy the reply-all feature. Each reply contains the attachment. In a few minutes, 10 replies go back and forth. - every reply splits into 20 copies as it clears the queue - 10 replies x 20 copies each = 200 copies x 10MB attachment = ~2GB of traffic in a few minutes from one email threadIn E2k10 single instance storage no longer exists; everybody on a database receiving that email gets a unique copy of the attachment. The original and replies don't account for just ~2.2GB of network traffic; they're ~2.2GB of storage that's being consumed on the back-end, all from the work of a few minutes.Will your admin notice? Depends how many databases there are, how much storage there is, what kind of NICs your servers are using (1Gb/sec are common), etc. Short answer is "probably not". But the problem isn't one message or one thread; it's the ability to generate significant content in a very short order by anybody in the organization. Yours might not be the only thread with an attachment that people are replying-all to at any given time.Scale the problem up to a thousand people sharing a server. The odds of people eating needless space go up quite a bit.Scale it to 50,000 users in the US and UK, and distro lists that have global rea ...
Fark.com MobileCopyright © 1999 - 2015 Fark, Inc Last updated: Aug 30 2015 05:54:06
Contact | Report error | TOS/legal/privacyFull site