Microsoft Launches New Office 365 Features Blocking Reply-All Email Storms (zdnet.com) 60
Microsoft has begun rolling out a new feature in Office 365 to help IT staff stop the scourage that is "Reply-All email storms." ZDNet reports:
The feature started rolling out this week to all Office 365 users worldwide. In its current form, Microsoft says the "Reply All Storm Protection" feature will block all email threads with more than 5,000 recipients that have generated more than 10 Reply-All sequences within the last 60 minutes. Once the feature gets triggered, Exchange Online will block all replies in the email thread for the next four hours, helping servers prioritize actual emails and shut down the Reply-All storm.
Microsoft said it would also continue working on the feature going forward, promising to add controls for Exchange admins so they can set their own storm detection limits.Other planned features also include Reply-All storm reports and real-time notifications to alert administrators of an ongoing email storm so that they can keep an eye on the email server's status for possible slowdowns or crashes.
The article notes Microsoft has experienced two different "Reply-All email storms" internally witin the last 18 months which included more than 52,000 employees, "who ended up clogging the company's internal communications for hours."
A post on Microsoft's Exchange blog now says "We're already seeing the first version of the feature successfully reduce the impact of reply all storms within Microsoft."
Microsoft said it would also continue working on the feature going forward, promising to add controls for Exchange admins so they can set their own storm detection limits.Other planned features also include Reply-All storm reports and real-time notifications to alert administrators of an ongoing email storm so that they can keep an eye on the email server's status for possible slowdowns or crashes.
The article notes Microsoft has experienced two different "Reply-All email storms" internally witin the last 18 months which included more than 52,000 employees, "who ended up clogging the company's internal communications for hours."
A post on Microsoft's Exchange blog now says "We're already seeing the first version of the feature successfully reduce the impact of reply all storms within Microsoft."
"Microsoft has experienced... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
When will we have a usable Microsoft operating system? That the biggest issue.
Offtopic, but Windows 3.11 for Workgroups, 95 OSR 2, 98 SE, and 2000 SP4 were all pretty usable in my opinion. XP SP2+ was probably the superlative 'usable' MS OS. Windows 7 with service pack was also quite usable. I can't speak for Vista as I kind of skipped it (my recent use of it suggests it was also pretty usable). Oddly, I find Windows 8.1 + OpenShell and a few other usability tweaks to be radically more usable than Windows 10, which is a clunky, slow, unreliable mess by comparison. At work, I wind up
Re:"Microsoft has experienced... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
My experience from last year for a Fortune 50 company was the _exact_ same thing, except the percentages were a little better:
1% Don't reply all!
1% Please remove me from this list
1% What is this?
The other 97% people were actually pretty good about ignoring a system-wide email thread that had nothing to do with them -- even though they were magically placed on this internal mailing list. What's that quote by allegedly by Einstein? [stackexchange.com]
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure abo
Re: (Score:2)
We had one at work last year. The answer is most of them.
The better question is "Do people actually Reply All to an email with thousands of recipients with a read receipt request attached?" and the answer to that is unfortunately some people do!
Re: (Score:2)
There's an easier fix (Score:2)
Re:There's an easier fix (Score:5, Insightful)
To: MassiveMailingList@yourcompany.com
Problem not solved.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, set a flag, No-Reply-All=True.
Senders set this or are held responsible for there actions.
Outlook would obey the flag. All happy. Job done.
Re:There's an easier fix (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Any list that sends to 52,000 employees would probably be limited to only 5 key people in management. A list of 60 employees would probably be limited to only the employees in the list (department lists, team lists, etc). Using nested lists complicates this approach, but that's what mail administrators are paid to configure.
---
Re: (Score:2)
One company I did work for had that exposed publically. Then someone sent a mail to that address asking if someone could help with getting an apartment. A short while after there was another mail "I will kill my brother for giving me that mail address".
Re: (Score:2)
Mailing list should be properly configured to only allow sending by "a few" users or by having an approval process. The 20 year old listserv software we use at work does this, why can't anything modern?
Re: There's an easier fix (Score:2)
Our company wide mailing list is restricted to a few people. Weâ(TM)re on Office 365. Iâ(TM)ve wonder what is weâ(TM)re doing differently behind the scenes, or if thereâ(TM)s some other issues with these mark storms?
Re: (Score:2)
Mailing list should be properly configured to only allow sending by "a few" users or by having an approval process. The 20 year old listserv software we use at work does this, why can't anything modern?
In my experience it's because someone important but not on the list didn't want to deal with the processes and found someone who didn't have the past experience to know better helped them out. (for the record my experience was being the person they found)
Re: (Score:2)
Optional but not needed: Have them BCC: MassiveMailingList@yourcompany.com instead.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
There are already kilobyte-size limits to these fields, so you could in fact just use a really really long domain name/subdomain .
Not sure why 5k mails w/ 10 reply-alls is the cut-off - seems kinda excessive. Why not have it system-admin configurable?
Re: There's an easier fix (Score:2)
If you read the summary you would see that they will "continue to work on the feature" and make the limits configurable.
remove Reply-All (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of reply-all is already a problem in business communication. Several email providers nowadays have it disabled by default. I have had to repeatedly educate every new team member to keep people cc-ed when they reply, as they need to be part of the message exchanges. (We often cc secretaries, technical staff, accountants, vendors, etc. - it's the usual way of solving everyday business questions that involve more than two persons. Often not everybody knows everybody, so the correct culture is to keep
Re: (Score:3)
suspicious timing (Score:4, Funny)
As the mendacious narrative underlying the Covidiot tyrannies begins to unravel, Big Tech's efforts at censorship have shifted into high gear. Big Brother Google is going wild removing videos and manipulating search results. Faceboot has announced measures to censor political protest events and make it more difficult to spread samizdat information by WhatsApp and Messenger.
So I can't help wondering if this is Microsoft's effort to prevent the masses from communicating freely, in order to stifle political opposition to the Covidiot tyrannies and the crimes against humanity they're perpetrating.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: suspicious timing (Score:2)
Ratings? You think comparing TV ratings to online ratings is useful? Ratings are nonsense except when they are comparing similar shows in similar timeslots. The ratings have to be combined with things like demographics of the viewership.
Here's a simple example:
Show A has four regular viewers, but those viewers are David Koch, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Jeff Bezos.
Show B has hundreds of millions of regular viewers around the world, but is almost entirely made up of pre-teen girls from developing countrie
30 years later... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not fixed if it's 5,000 users or any other arbitrary number or set timespan. These useless twats should have that as settable parameters... fucking incompetent primates over at Microsoft
Re: 30 years later... (Score:2)
Better than the "fucking incompetent primate" in the comment above this one who assumes it's not configurable. I mean, what a "twat" right? That guy's a real piece of shit...
reply all should be policy based (Score:3)
I survived bedlamDL3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here just to see if someone had already mentioned this.
Full story here [microsoft.com].
Only a problem with Garbage (Score:2)
This is only really a problem with Garbage E-Mail systems. Microsoft Exchange is one of them, and is not suitable for any use case whatsoever. This is not treating the "root cause" of the problem (using a retarded e-mail system) but rather is merely what we call "a bag on the side" to collect the overflowing shit.
The correct solution is to not use Microsoft Exchange. Then the problem will not occur.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
how many decades ago was this ?
Re: (Score:2)
Holy hell (Score:2)
That's the kind of shit-storm they need to see before they activate something? That right there should tell you the incompetence level tolerated at Microsoft.
If you need more than a few dozens people in your CC list, you should be using a mailing list.
Re: (Score:2)
They mean "recipients" literally, as in the number people who actually get the email which is not the same as the number of e-mail addresses on the To or Cc fields. The cited "Bedlam DL3" was a "distribution list" (Microsoft-speak for "mailing list.")
Why does it have to hit a limit? (Score:2)
You should be able to send emails that stop all 'reply alls'
This is a really bad idea (Score:4, Funny)
I for one think Reply-All email storms serve a very important purpose. Writing down the names of people who hit reply all and type "Take me off your mailing list" is important when management tells you that it's time to cut 1000 jobs.
Or they COULD, y'know. HANDLE IT PROPERLY? (Score:1)
Make it so if there are multiple entries in To or CC, that it simply generates an individual e-mail to EACH entry, "under the hood" and sends them out separately.
They could even link them all so you could filter for the e-mail down the road.
5,000? Really? (Score:2)
No one should be allowed to send an email to that many people, period.
A reply-all storm involving just 20 people is bad enough!
We managed for decades without this (Score:2)
Is this ignorant Millennials coming in and not understanding how email works?
This wasn't a big issue for the first three decades of email. Not to say it wasn't an issue, but people seemed to understand they needed to stop reply-all'ing.
Re: (Score:1)
Haven't you hit reply all instead of reply? I've done it... and when it was sent to everyone - CRAP!
Re: We managed for decades without this (Score:2)
Yes, but it's never led to multiple days of Reply Alls in response. It generally dies down after a few emails.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, but it's never led to multiple days of Reply Alls in response. It generally dies down after a few emails.
I'd be horrified if that happened to me. Reply all when you wanted to just reply to makes you feel like an idiot. Causing a reply-all storm... OMG. That's when you become "That guy."
Are you not entertained? (Score:1)