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.

  • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • JackLSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 hours 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

    • Deconceptualist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Why? BCC is the solution and has been part of email since at least 1990. I’m not condoning a dogpile on OP, but this is a solved problem.

      • jumjummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Better than BCC is using a Distribution List with restrictions on who can send to it. Helps see who else got the email, without blowing up with reply-all emails. Obviously this only works in a corporate environment where distribution lists can be restricted.

      • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        22 hours ago

        This is the answer, bbc is the solution.

        To get less “tech inclined” people to use the bbc feature is another story.

        Sending a email to the whole office from HR, bbc all recipients. Then recipients can only reply to HR, and not 600 plus staff members, into a email chain that last all day asking people to stop replying all, while replying all at the same time.

        • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 hours ago

          So are you directly supplying the bbc or did you hire someone?

          What’s so technical about working with a bbc? I mean they’re big but not that different from a regular c.

          You want to bbc over 600 people? You’re going to need people working in shifts. I don’t think it could be done all at once.

          You want the bbcs to last all day? Jesus that’s a hell of an ask. I hope you’re hiring professionals.

          What’s email got to do with bbc?

  • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day 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

  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

  • IMNOTCRAZYINSTITUTION@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

  • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • fitgse@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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)

  • Acamon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day 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.

      • NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Also their fault because a lot of them have had the Reply All button first before Reply. Outlook, at least, seems to be changing this in some ways.

        But putting it first is guaranteeing users will just click the first “reply” and keep writing.

    • SatyrSack@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • AFK BRB Chocolate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day 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.”

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

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

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day 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.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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.

  • .Donuts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Step 1: draft an email to yourself

    Step 2: put all recipients in the BCC

    Step 3: now “reply all” does jack shit

    • NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      I just get users messaging me to ask “is this spam?” since there’s no one in the To: section or they weren’t in the CC or To section.

      But I still do it to avoid this type of crap.

      • edric@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You can put in the first line of your message body:

        <group of people> in bcc

    • Boozilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • MentallyExhausted@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        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 :-)

        • Boozilla@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 hours 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.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • otp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 hours ago

          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?

          • superkret@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 hours ago

            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.