I suggest that inappropriate use of Reply to All should be a terminable offense

If I ran **dalej42 **incorporated, I’d make the inappropriate use of Reply to All ground for immediate termination.

During employee orientation, everyone would have to go through mandatory training covering the difference between reply and reply to all. Everyone, regardless if you’re working in the employee cafeteria or a senior IT specialist would be required to acknowledge they’ve been through the training and understand how to use reply to all. Think of it like the sexual harassment training all employees have to undergo.

I’m sure most of us already get too many useless emails at work. Nothing is more annoying than the endless reply to all emails, they’re often congratulatory emails. Joe Smith is now promoted to manager of fish throwing and email is sent out to all 500 employees in the Chicagoland division. That’s always followed up by at least 10, often more, of, “Congrats!” emails sent to all 500 fucking employees!!!

Second, if someone sends an email in error, often to say, ALL_USERS_PROGRAMX, you do NOT need to reply to all with, “Take me off this list…” You most certainly do not need to reply to all and send out, “Please don’t reply to all!!!” Back and forth these emails go, clogging up the inbox with 50-100 useless emails.

If you worked for me, and I was the Alpha and Omega of my company, I’d fire you in a heartbeat for this nonsense.

Why didn’t you fire your CIO for not configuring the email application to disable the “Reply All” feature in the first place?

Oh, wait; this is a hypothetical company that does not actually exist. Allow me to rephrase:

Why didn’t you would have fired your CIO for not configuring the email application to disable the “Reply All” feature in the first place?

Just curious, is there a way to disable Reply to All for the worker bees, but keep it for a select few who might need it?

I use Reply All all the time. I collaborate over email with modestly sized teams, 4-5 people, and any updates I have to our documents should go to “all” of them, so I reply all to the last message.

Disable Reply All, dalej42, and you’re not firing me, I quit!

Yes, Reply All is a useful feature. The correct way to handle it is to have human moderation on any distribution lists that exceed more than, say, a dozen people.

I work for a federal government agency that has offices in several cities across the US. Several times a year an email will be sent to everyone in the goddam agency regarding an event that is taking place at headquarters in DC, e.g. “X Y’s presentation will be held in room 223 at 3:30 this afternoon.” IOW, useless information for anyone not physically present in that building.

One one such occasion one of the recipients in a distant city replied and asked to be removed from the list - except she replied to all. :smack:

Then someone else replied to her and informed her that she was using reply-to-all - except this person also used reply-to-all. :smack::smack:

There were a couple more rounds of very public bitching about it, with more people asking (via reply-to-all :smack::smack::smack:) to be removed from the mailing list, and finally someone else deliberately did a reply-to-all and said “please keep me on this mailing list; this interoffice chaos and grumbling is extremely entertaining.” :smiley:

It should be simple enough to have a function that works as follows: If “reply to all” would end up going to more than, say, twenty people, you get a message that says something like, “This is going to go to 247 people. Are you sure?”. Then you can click on “yes” to send.

I think you can send a mass email with the ccs transparent, hence a solution. So don’t send a mass email with the ccs opaque in the first place.

Eudora used to have a warning flag if you “reply-alled” to certain people. IIRC, it was called the Boss Flag, and the idea was to flag your superiors and other sensitive people you wouldn’t want to gangmail the latest rant or cat video to.

I worked at a Fortune 500 high tech company where our CEO went on his on-line radio broadcast and said that those replying to all in the inappropriate ways mentioned here might not be smart enough to keep working for the company.
The easy fix is to disable reply all for large mailing lists, but you need control of the list to do that. the second alternative is to disable the list for a day until the idiocy dies down.
The way I see it is that the first person to reply all probably just made a mistake, and will never do it again.
The people who reply all to ask to be taken off the list need a day long class in how email works. No food or water until they prove they figure it out.
However the people who reply to all telling people not to reply to all need to be made an example of. If not fired, at least put them in the stocks for a day.

:bcc exists for a reason, and not just to tattle on someone.

Those were my thoughts exactly on reading the OP. I’d put the onus on the sender in this situation.

I agree. We get this happening one a year or so, and we have 170,000 employees. I want to bitchslap ANYONE who replies-to-all “Take me off this list”. It shows they don’t even pay attention to what they are doing. Like did they not notice that the original was a mistake? Do they not think that maybe they should be on the list? Especially when the list is “All employees in the company”. Sure, we can take you off that list, no problem!

I would view the people that 'replied to all" as volunteers for force reduction. Except the ones that RTA with a good joke. I wouldn’t fire them, but depending on the humor level, they may get ‘training’.

I ask from ignorance: if you Reply All (in Outlook, say) doesn’t it still copy all the :bccs?

Wouldn’t the same happen to “transparent” :ccs (i’m not sure what that is like, we don’t seem to have that feature)?

Oh, and to reply to the OP, I think if it were my company I would probably want to give three strikes. I’d hate to have to fire an otherwise useful employee if (s)he made one stupid mistake. I’ve made a stupid mistake, at some time in my life.

You could probably program an email client that, when someone selects “reply to all,” presents you with a check list of names from the original email, with all names unchecked by default. Then you would have to specifically select your desired recipients.

The first person to RTA to the entire company, maybe. But not the rest. They have no excuse. When you already have 60 emails in your inbox all with the same subject line, that should be a clue that something is wrong.

In my experience, no.

If regular employees can send to the list of all 170,000 employees someone needs to tell IT to get their shit in gear. Big email lists like this should have a short list of accounts that can send to it. I have worked in a few big companies and all of them has big public email lists locked down to cut down on accidental spamming issues.

I believe that e-mail apps not only don’t send Reply-Alls to the bccs, but in fact they can’t.

When you receive an e-mail that was bcc’d to others as well, the copy that you receive doesn’t contain the list of other bcc recipients in it. If you dig through all the headers, you’ll see: it’s simply not there. So when you Reply-All, your e-mailer doesn’t even have the necessary information to know who to reply to. OTOH, all the other CC’s who got the mail will be visible in the copy you receive, so your e-mailer is able to Reply-All to those.

We’ve had a few huge mail storms in the past, and the fix was to lock down distribution lists so only their owner and designated senders can send messages from them, and the messages are automatically sent bcc: to all recipients.

IIRC, there’s also an Exchange policy or two that limit how many cc: recipients can be added to an email irrespective of d-lists or groups.

We have around 300,000 employees and contractors, so an enterprise-wide “reply all” would be disastrous.