Shenanigans!: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: SineSwiper: Office Rule #4:Do not send the email if you're not comfortable with it being sent to everybody in the company! This isn't just about Reply to All, but message threads that end up being forwarded, or add-ons to message threads, etc. Also, quit using email like a chat protocol. IM is there for a reason. (And that also means you don't start using the corporate IM for vulgar comments, either.)Absolutely this. Do not use company email for private communications. Even if you don't screw up and send it to the wrong people, another person in the chain could. Also, company email accounts have no legal privacy rights (and your company can archive them forever).Absolutely. I knew of a coworker at my company who was fired several years ago for exchanging porn via company email with a friend of hers outside the company. She was caught when IT happened to read her emails.I don't use company email for any personal correspondence whatsoever - you never know who could be looking, and you have no reason to expect your company emails are private.
Lsherm: WayToBlue: ZAZ: Also, company email accounts have no legal privacy rights (and your company can archive them forever).A large corporate employer had a policy of wiping email off the Exchange server after a short period. The purpose was to keep enemy lawyers away. The email you copied to your personal mail folder on your company computer was still backed up. Company lawyers felt comfortable not searching your personal mail folder in response to discovery demands for all email.I'm curious, when was this? AFAIK it has been standard practice to include end point mail storage for discovery requests for a while now.Since my division has to deal with legal requests all the time, and the last one included decrypting a 10 year-old Groupwise archive stored on an employee's computer, I don't think that strategy works any more.
MrEricSir: How about instead of the nuclear option, we create a better UI for Reply All that gently reminds you who is going to see your message before you hit send?
fluffy2097: MrEricSir: How about instead of the nuclear option, we create a better UI for Reply All that gently reminds you who is going to see your message before you hit send?Because ALL simply doesn't imply everyone, we should make a popup "are you sure you want to reply to all", that everyone will ignore.Because everyone will ignore the popup, we can make another popup that pops up when you click "I am sure" that says "are you sure you're sure?"
downstairs: Maybe your client is different, but I use Outlook 2003 and "reply" and "reply all" does not include the attachment. Only forwarding it does.
Smackledorfer: Reply all is useful.I've never accidentally hit it, but can see how it is easy to do. I view this as an ergonomics issue.And to all the haters here saying people deserve to be fired for what amounts to a tiny mistake: you are assholes. The only difference between you and any of the people who have hit reply all is that you have yet to make the mistake, or your errors have luckily occurred in ways that didn't create a problem.mistakes: everybody makes them. EVERYBODY.
Wingchild: I concur; my example was trying to illustrate why that's the way it works. If replies contained attachments, it could generate a punishing burden on your email system.
dywed88: Plus, everyone you could Reply or Reply All to already has the attachment.
Kid Mojo: Just get rid of BCC and we'll all be happy.
Hawnkee: Kid Mojo: Just get rid of BCC and we'll all be happy.I object. BCC is a superb tool for destroying the careers of incompetent and bigoted management when HR is included on just the right evidence.
Wingchild: In E2k10 single instance storage no longer exists; everybody on a database receiving that email gets a unique copy of the attachment.
Anastacya: Uh, how about not composing an email that has the potential of getting you into trouble in the first place? Politics in an office exist
Vaneshi: Getting in trouble for sending an e-mail does not require you to actually use any vulgar words, slang, misquote or indeed do anything beyond clicking send. I've seen reprimands handed out before now for quoting Ghandi's "First they laugh at you..." line as it might cause offence to someone of a different religion.
fluffy2097: Vaneshi: Getting in trouble for sending an e-mail does not require you to actually use any vulgar words, slang, misquote or indeed do anything beyond clicking send. I've seen reprimands handed out before now for quoting Ghandi's "First they laugh at you..." line as it might cause offence to someone of a different religion.Work is not the time for flowery prose dude. I know you have an English degree and desperately want to prove it wasn't a degree in underwater basket weaving, but work e-mail is not the place to do it."We didn't cause this problem, we are just profiting from it.""The tape autoloader is out of alignment and we need to have a tech sent out.""We will win this contract in the long run."/Is this hard? really?
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jan 17 2017 23:56:58
Runtime: 0.187 sec (187 ms)