Slashdot Mirror


The NHS's 1.2 Million Employees Are Trapped in a 'Reply-All' Email Thread (businessinsider.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Business Insider report:The NHS's 1.2 million employees are currently trapped in a "reply-all" email hell. A "test" email was accidentally sent to everyone who works at the UK health service - prompting a series of reply-all responses from annoyed recipients going out to all 1-million-plus employees of the organisations. An NHS employee told Business Insider that there have been at least 120 replies so far -- meaning that more than 140 million needless emails have been sent across the NHS's network today. As a result, they said, its email systems are running "very slow today." The NHS Pensions department is currently warning people on Twitter that "if contacting us by email please be aware that there may be delays in responding due to an issue currently affecting all NHS mail."

302 comments

  1. Please remove by Mycroft-X · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please remove me from this distribution, I don't know how I got on it.

    1. Re:Please remove by aicrules · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry I don't own this distribution, please contact someone else.

    2. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remove me too please

    3. Re:Please remove by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

      *replies all*

      Hey everyone, stop replying all! This is very annoying.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Please remove by Jose · · Score: 4, Funny

      Me too!

      --
      The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
    5. Re:Please remove by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      unsubscribe

    6. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can people stop replying to this. Thanks.

    7. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To all!

      Please Stop Replying to All asking to be removed!

    8. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please remove me from this mailing list.

    9. Re:Please remove by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Please remove me from this list

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    10. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK - sorry.

    11. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I keep getting emails?

    12. Re:Please remove by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Me too.

    13. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, in today's world, I am constantly surprised (although I shouldn't be anymore) by these chains that pop up routinely.

    14. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, but I'm not aware of any email clients where "reply all" is the default behavior.

    15. Re:Please remove by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's almost as if there's no way for the mail server to filter messages with more than a million recipients.

      --
      No sig today...
    16. Re:Please remove by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      People, please! Stop asking to be removed, it doesn't work that way!

    17. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously downloaded the ISO.

    18. Re: Please remove by Luthair · · Score: 1

      It's actually a bit odd there isn't a reasonable hard limit.

    19. Re:Please remove by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Please direct this request to IT and stop replying to all!!!!111oneone

    20. Re: Please remove by tripleevenfall · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you for your message. I am out of the office until 23/11/2016. For immediate service, please contact the Help Desk.

    21. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reply All

      When you find out, please let me know!!!

    22. Re: Please remove by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      If the reply to is a list with everyone on it, reply and reply ask are equivalent

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    23. Re:Please remove by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain why people would ever react like this? If the company that pays your salary puts you in a internal mailing list, why would anyone assume that it was OK to ask to be taken out of it?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    24. Re:Please remove by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Re: Re: Re: TestEmail
      It's people like you that are making this chain keep going! Just stop replying!

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    25. Re:Please remove by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Please don't "Reply all" unless you put the list in "BCC".

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    26. Re:Please remove by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the last post, I forgot to put everybody into BCC.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    27. Re:Please remove by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because sometimes you change positions and should no longer be on a mailing list that had something to do with your old role, but the list administrator (who *might* not be IT, in fact likely isn't) hasn't taken you off it.

      I had this happen when I transferred to an entirely different team, and over 5 months later was still getting e-mail from a list that the manager of the team refused to take me off of (it was retaliation for leaving his team). Finally with the [written] consent of my current boss I started openly replying to the list's questions with bogus info that looked correct. Nothing earth shattering, but also not quite right. Hilarity ensued.

      I should add this list produced at least 50 emails a day!

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    28. Re:Please remove by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Help!!! I am the new email administrator for a company called NHS in the UK and it's an big email system with thousands of users! My problem is that someone sent an email to everyone and now everyone else is replying. I never heard of an email server stopping emails but the company is telling us to do the needful so what should I do? Your fast reply is generously appreciated!!!

    29. Re:Please remove by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Don't reply-all telling people not to reply-all!!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    30. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop replying to all telling people to not reply to all

    31. Re:Please remove by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      When I say "stop it" the whole world is supposed to obey.

      Just because it didn't work at any point in school, the recent election, the Super Bowl, during Rush Hour, or at the Tsunami is no reason to expect it isn't different this time.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    32. Re:Please remove by quantaman · · Score: 2

      Sorry!! I meant to hit Reply not Reply-All!

      And sorry again dammit!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    33. Re:Please remove by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      by Mycroft-X ( 11435 ) on 2016-11-14 10:22 (#53281043), Please remove me from this distribution, I don't know how I got on it.

      by aicrules ( 819392 ) on 2016-11-14 10:28 (#53281073), Sorry I don't own this distribution, please contact someone else.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:29 (#53281079), Remove me too please

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:34 (#53281137), Can people stop replying to this. Thanks.

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on 2016-11-14 11:13 (#53281525), It's almost as if there's no way for the mail server to filter messages with more than a million recipients.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:34 (#53281139), To all! Please Stop Replying to All asking to be removed!

      by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on 2016-11-14 10:37 (#53281159), Please remove me from this list

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on 2016-11-14 10:30 (#53281097), Hey everyone, stop replying all! This is very annoying.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:36 (#53281153), Please remove me from this mailing list.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:44 (#53281229), OK - sorry.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:45 (#53281239), Why do I keep getting emails?

      by Jose ( 15075 ) on 2016-11-14 10:30 (#53281099), Me too!

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on 2016-11-14 10:34 (#53281133), unsubscribe

      by UPZ ( 947916 ) on 2016-11-14 10:42 (#53281209), GCHQ and NSA server CPU load must be spiking everytime an NHS employee hits 'reply all'.

      by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on 2016-11-14 10:47 (#53281253), Me too.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 10:56 (#53281355), Seriously though, in today's world, I am constantly surprised (although I shouldn't be anymore) by these chains that pop up routinely.

      by Anonymous Coward on 2016-11-14 11:09 (#53281475), I realize that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, but I'm not aware of any email clients where "reply all" is the default behavior.

      by Lisandro ( 799651 ) on 2016-11-14 11:14 (#53281535), People, please! Stop asking to be removed, it doesn't work that way!

      Stop using "reply all" you idiots! It's only making things worst!

      And I have also found a limit on the number of nested blockquotes we can do on Slashdot so I had to simplify my reply and make it un-nested blockquotes otherwise it would not accept my reply with a "Your comment has too few characters per line" warning! My joke has been ruined!

    34. Re:Please remove by BenFranske · · Score: 1

      I don't know that cc:Mail has that functionality ;)

    35. Re:Please remove by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that it must be a fairly simple algorithm to start at the beginning email and just walk the entire tree and delete everything. Or sense that it is happening in the first place.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    36. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unsubscribe

    37. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish mail clients would pop up a "You are about to send an email to 5,312 addresses, type 5312 to continue: _____" when someone tries to send an email to more than 4-5 people.

    38. Re:Please remove by Coisiche · · Score: 1

      You seem to be unaware that NHS = National Health Service, so it's not a company but a government organisation.

    39. Re:Please remove by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that mail clients don't know whether the "all@" mailing list email expands to five users or five million. As far as it is concerned, you're sending it to one address.

      The correct solution is server-side, not client-side. Specify a policy that any mailing list with more than... say thirty people must have an authorized senders list, and must reject emails from anyone not on that list. That way, when someone responds to the "all@" list without a "Resent-From" header from someone on the authorized senders list, it will get dropped.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    40. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is BCC?

    41. Re: Please remove by SlovakWakko · · Score: 2

      Maybe there is one. It's just that it's NHS. Their definition of 'reasonable' may be not what you expect...

    42. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      every time you reply, it continues the thread. please stop replying!

    43. Re:Please remove by war4peace · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful.
      Most of our mailing lists have a small set of approved senders and nobody else can send to that list.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    44. Re: Please remove by RandomAvatar · · Score: 1

      Don't tell me what to do!

    45. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsubscrube

    46. Re: Please remove by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      I can't unsubscribe you! Call IT!

      ---
      ~~~Big minds discuss ideas, small minds discus people~~~
      -George Carlin

    47. Re:Please remove by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Moving slashdot to BCC.

    48. Re:Please remove by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain why people would ever react like this? If the company that pays your salary puts you in a internal mailing list, why would anyone assume that it was OK to ask to be taken out of it?

      The sender, whom The Register will identify only as R, sent the blank message with a subject line that simply read "test" to a distribution list called CroydonPractices, according to irritated health service workers who contacted us.

      The message somehow found its way to all NHS.net email addresses – and was immediately magnified by thoughtless people hitting "reply" to point out the error and demand they be removed. ... Correction - NHS Direct has been in touch to clarify that of their 1.2 million staffers, 850k are email address-havers. That's much better, right? NHS IT bod sends test email to 850k users – and then responses are sent 'reply all'

      I would think if you are in the General Dentistry Dept., you would find that the mailing list for Haematological Oncologists had a really small signal to noise ratio, and an unsubscribe would be in order.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    49. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The admin who works for GCHQ is probably up to something nefarious as he deletes all the Hilary emails in the wake of this mass mailing. A needle in the haystack.

    50. Re: Please remove by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      It's almost as if:
      - Users of large distribution lists don't know how to avoid having people reply (even if they use reply-all) to an email sent to many (e.g. > 100) recipients to all recipients, for example by putting the large distribution list in BCC instead of To
      - Many recipients of emails sent to large distribution lists are very slow learners and also seem to think that receiving one unnecessary email is worth complaining about
      - Email admins have forgotten about moderated mailing lists, and haven't ensured their users are educated on the points above

      Yes, the IT section (500 people) of our large ICT company has also had this happen twice in the past 5 years. You would think people in IT would know better ..

    51. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that filter is what they were testing...

    52. Re:Please remove by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      My default mail account at work restricts me to 30 users at once. When I send from our help desk email address, I can send to an unlimited amount of users, but I have to digitally sign the email so they know the sender. I thought that this kind of practice was the norm.

    53. Re:Please remove by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 2

      Did you ask your current boss to ask your former boss to remove you from the list? If so, and your former boss refused, I would have hoped your current boss would escalate the issue to your former boss's boss. Kick it up the management chain.

    54. Re:Please remove by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      At might last jb, we didn't until someone from HR accidentally sent to the whole company a spreadsheet with everyone's names, addresses, socials, and salary instead of the company picnic flyer.

      That person was fired and the solution was to institute those limits.

    55. Re:Please remove by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      It was more complex than that.
      Nearly was at civil war levels. I subsequently left the company and my previous boss, and his boss lost their managerial duties, the team broken up.

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    56. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft Outlook connected to an Exchange server certainly does. No idea what NHS is using but on our Exchange 2010 / Outlook 2013 setup we'll get warnings if there are more than a couple of people in our recipients.

    57. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds oddly familiar. Did we work for the same company? That happened to us around 2006 or 2007. HR guy sent a .xls full of salary info to the whole company, IT turned off Exchange for several hours while they figured out WTF to do about it, followed by them scrubbing all email boxes of the spreadsheet and a stern letter from our general counsel warning us of terminations and legal actions if we were caught with the spreadsheet.

      Didn't stop us from giggling about our coworker's salaries.

    58. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drop in the bucket for them. GCHQ is already doing a full take on all of GB's internet access anyway, this isn't a noticeable increase for them.

    59. Re:Please remove by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      Hey everyone, stop replying all! This is very annoying.

      Yes, stop using reply-all -- it bogs down the email system.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    60. Re:Please remove by boristdog · · Score: 2

      This happened in my company once. People kept replying to all, it was a clusterfuck and our company IT (in India, of course) couldn't figure out how to stop it.

      So I set up an auto-reply mechanism that looked like it came from IT, it told anyone who replied "ALL" that they were now removed from all company mailing lists.
      Of course everyone freaked out and emailed IT when they would get my notice. IT was pissed at me, but I stopped people from replying to ALL any more.

    61. Re:Please remove by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

      I know that guy, he lives a few houses down. I try to avoid him though, he's really strange.

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    62. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope he didn't do this because it shouldn't take a god damn act of god to manage what should have taken 30 seconds to complete. They earned what they got. Don't play along with those intentionally being difficult.

    63. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boss: It says I need to be an authorized sender to reply to this email. Am I an authorized sender?

      Secretary: Yes sir, you are an authorized sender. Remember? IT didn't want to give that to you but we all thought that was just silly, so you threatened to switch to Linux if they didn't make you an authorized sender.

      Boss: That's what I thought. (presses reply all)

    64. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What is BCC?

      It's the same as CC. Nobody really knows, why the Email has two fields for addresses. Programmers are weird.

    65. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *attaches large bitmap screenshot of Outlook with a circle around "Reply All" button*

      Stop clicking on this button and emailing everyone, please!

    66. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outlook 2010 and higher running against Exchange 2010 and higher does do this (minus the typing bit).

      "The group ALL STAFF contains 1,054,245 recipients. Consider putting this group in the BCC list instead, to avoid excessive replies."

    67. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is how you unsubscribe?
      unsubscribe
      sudo unsubscribe

    68. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But limiting it to authorized senders wouldn't fix that problem, assuming they'd have been authorized to send the flyer.

    69. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the Backup CC. In case the main CC fails. Make sure you always put your recipient addresses into both fields.

    70. Re: Please remove by ogdenk · · Score: 2

      I can't get through to IT, the phones have been busy for hours! What do we even pay those guys for?

      Please unsubscribe.

    71. Re:Please remove by youngone · · Score: 1

      We restricted attachment sizes when some numpty emailed 30 colleagues a 30MB zip of his holiday snaps, and they all spent the afternoon replying all with the zip still attached.

    72. Re: Please remove by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      Hey, you spelled unsubscribe wrong. Please use a spellchecker everybody. We don't want to look unprofessional.

    73. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Send an email to everyone@earth.ox.ac.uk and feel good knowing you are wasting time of hundreds of the world's "best" scientists.

      pS: send porn. lots of porn....

    74. Re:Please remove by Foundryman · · Score: 1

      Me too

    75. Re:Please remove by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Er...whoosh?

    76. Re: Please remove by umghhh · · Score: 1

      you seem to be knowledgeable can you please help me remove my address from this list, it is getting really annoying.

    77. Re:Please remove by joss · · Score: 1

      yeah, the questions could get harder as you go up...

      You are about to send this message to 1.2 million people. To continue, please enter the grid coordinates of the holy grail:

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    78. Re:Please remove by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Indeed - I am still keeping mails from a team I left 3ya. The automated information about their sprints and stories land in a separate trash folder out of respect for the answer I got when I tried to get removed: "it is impossible".

    79. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you sent this to the wrong address. JFYI

    80. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like pandemonium in the asylum. Delta Lima Three.

    81. Re:Please remove by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Well at least the IT department sent out an email to everyone telling them not to reply.

    82. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because that's the only thing he's unaware of....

    83. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paul Combetta, is that you?

    84. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!!

    85. Re: Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for subscribing to CAT FACTS. Did you know that the Japanese word for Bobcat is Yamaneko? It literally means "Mountain Cat".

    86. Re:Please remove by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      36.5847 N, 36.1756 E

      It's in Alexandretta, Egypt. Indiana Jones told me.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    87. Re:Please remove by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You should set up an autoreply with a goatse link... they'll find a way to remove you in a day. Guaranteed.

      If anybody complains at you personally just claim you had a virus and it happened in the few hours while you were away from your machine and when you got back you ran a scan and fixed it. Not your fault they got 50 goatses in the meantime.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    88. Re:Please remove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For crying out loud, every reply like this by ignorant assholes such as yourself only makes this worse! Would you idiots PLEASE STOP REPLYING! NOW!!!1

    89. Re:Please remove by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      Can someone explain...

      The first reason is that many people regard "Reply All" as simply "Reply" more stridently. A Reply saying "unsubscribe" is not felt be as forceful as a reply all saying the same thing.

      Another reason is that the people who do reply like this tend to feel that they are important. It is likely that not all of the 850K recipients of the original mail replied. It would be interesting if someone analysed the mails for job titles. I bet that few of them said "Doctor", "Nurse", "Cleaner" or "Secretary". This, we are unlikely to have confirmed though.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    90. Re:Please remove by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      It is the default for Office 365 Outlook Web mail. Which I use because I am a developer, which means I use Linux so I don't have Outlook. Microsoft has made Outlook web almost unusable at this point. And the contact list is even worse, now called 'People' with extra formatted information, head shots, icons, flags, etc. and not just a frigging list like I want.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    91. Re:Please remove by TechnoJoe · · Score: 1

      NHS must be using Exchange. Sendmail would have plowed through that in under an hour.

    92. Re:Please remove by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Win! Win!

      Except for their future employers.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    93. Re:Please remove by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      You should set up an autoreply with a goatse link... they'll find a way to remove you in a day. Guaranteed.

      He only wants to be removed from the list, not the company.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    94. Re:Please remove by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      He's been removed from the company for 3 years - it clearly isn't an issue anymore.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    95. Re:Please remove by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      I think we must have - KCI?

    96. Re:Please remove by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That is a setting server side, and is not the default configuration.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    97. Re: Please remove by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your helpful comment.

      That is not what this message thread is for, as it happens.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  2. Good ol' fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mail everyone@nhs.co.uk for extra fun!

    Gee, why don't they just disable the alias until the issue sorts itself out?

    1. Re:Good ol' fun by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Mailman has a "Pause all mailing lists" button for flame wars.

    2. Re:Good ol' fun by Dave+Whiteside · · Score: 2

      they have
      https://www.theguardian.com/so...
      still will take time though ...

      IT contractors eh!

      --
      who where what when now?
    3. Re:Good ol' fun by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Emailing a group like that should have been limited to a very small number of people. Everyone else should have got a message that they were not authorized to use that email message.

      This is email server admin 101 level knowledge.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Good ol' fun by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but you see, Mailman is an old-fashioned piece of software for an operating system that comes from the '70's.

      Modern, advanced software from Microsoft (tm) will ensure emails will be delivered to everybody, under every circumstance.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:Good ol' fun by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      This is email server admin 101 level knowledge.

      This only applies to places big enough to have an "email server admin". In a lot of small shops, there is only one IT guy doing all the work from installing ethernet cables, helping users configure their OS and programs, setting up WordPress and email accounts. He can't know everything on all subjects.

    6. Re:Good ol' fun by taustin · · Score: 1

      They have 1.2 million users. That's big enough to have an "email server admin." In fact, it's big enough to have two. They should get some. Not having any hasn't worked out too well for them.

    7. Re:Good ol' fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on how it was sent. Was it actually sent to 'all mailboxes" (which should be limited), or was it sent to a bunch of distribution groups which could have been left wide open for anyone to send to,

    8. Re:Good ol' fun by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, Exchange also has a bunch of tools allowing you to do the same thing, but incompetent IT will be incompetent regardless of the tools (or manglement if they overrode IT decisions about it).

    9. Re:Good ol' fun by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Two things, and Email System that has 1.2 Million people should have a few Email Admins at various levels of authority. The other thing is, a small shop (for various definitions of "small" ) wouldn't have nearly the problem a system with 1.2 Million accounts has, so getting it right wouldn't be nearly the same issue has NIH has.

      That being said, It is a five minute configuration on just about any system to setup security to prevent this sort of thing. Size of shop doesn't actually matter in how much time it takes to setup. And the headaches prevented, large or small, is worth the time to do it right the first time.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    10. Re:Good ol' fun by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actually they have 1.2 million Employees, only 850,000 have an Email address.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Good ol' fun by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      They have 1.2 million users. That's big enough to have an "email server admin." In fact, it's big enough to have two. They should get some. Not having any hasn't worked out too well for them.

      Well....if they're using MS Exchange they'd need a team of 4 or 5 at least. So yes, someone should have known how to set the groups properly so that this could not happen. Of course, that's assuming it went to "Everyone" or a similar all-encompassing group. It could just as easily been a single email that contains a bunch of groups too...read TFA to find out (I would assume).

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    12. Re: Good ol' fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be surprised. My research department allows any dip shit to disrupt a hundred researchers at the world's "best" university with whatever they like. please do send us some shit: it may make things change here...

    13. Re:Good ol' fun by ChumpusRex2003 · · Score: 1

      It was sent to a distribution list, which to any reasonable person would be expected to have a very small distribution. The list was called "CroydonPractices", so presumably intended for the primary care practice managers in the Croydon region of London.

      It is not at all clear who set up the distribution list, or whether it was the same person who sent the test e-mail. The issue was that this particular distribution list for some reason included all users.

      I don't know what precautions the admin tools have to prevent mass replies. I think that some of the later versions of outlook will warn users sending e-mail to distribution lists if the number of recipients is greater than a certain number. However, according to wikipedia the backend for NHSmail is a customised version of outlook 2007, so it may be lacking some of the more modern features.

    14. Re:Good ol' fun by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Emailing a group like that should have been limited to a very small number of people. Everyone else should have got a message that they were not authorized to use that email message.

      This is email server admin 101 level knowledge.

      Then your user gets frustrated and starts manually adding names to the To: or Cc: and voila, instant meltdown again, just without distro lists.

      I have seen To: lines with hundreds, possibly thousands of email addresses in it. You would think there would be some sort of limit on the amount of individual addresses... but meh.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    15. Re:Good ol' fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they have 1.2 million Employees, only 850,000 have an Email address.

      No. Only 850K have an address on that system. Hospitals etc might have their own email server. Will they still be considering joining that centralised, single point of failure?

  3. I survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I survived Bedlam DL3

    The story of when Microsoft themselves fell victim to the same issue, and how it was resolved.

    1. Re:I survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I lived through one at a large, global financial company. It was kind of humorous.

      Some lady in a small European office of the company attended a company sponsored Halloween party dressed as a policewoman. Part of her costume included mirror sunglasses. She happened to misplace them at the party.

      So the Monday after the party she sent an email to her group explaining the situation and asking for everyone to look for them. We were on Lotus Notes and she accidentally chose * (iirc) instead of her groups distribution list. So 30,000 people across the world got the email.

      The funny part is that every smart ass in the company decided to have fun with it. Reply alls started flooding the network with messages such as "Looked in my office in Germany and can't find them", "Not in Wisconsin office", and "Didn't find them but did find handcuffs, you want those?". Went on for hours and basically took the email system down for 2 days.

      The worst part is that they had a few of the servers mis-configured or something because anyone who had an auto out of office reply would respond to all with that message, which would then trigger the other out of office replies again.

      Everyone spent a really long time removing tens of thousands of emails from their mailboxes.

    2. Re:I survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that. Fun times :)

      PSS - SDS - Winnersh Triangle (Or was it TVP, I forget).

    3. Re:I survived by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Now that is truly worthy of the BOFH

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    4. Re:I survived by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Had a similar thing happen in the 1990s when someone on a mailing list I managed (on my own server) tried to send a photo as an uncompressed bitmap to everyone. It was only about 4 MB, but back in those days the server's entire HDD was only 500 MB. Copies of the photo in the send queue and in the mailboxes of recipients who had local accounts filled up the HDD and crashed the server. I spent an hour picking up the pieces and finally cleared up enough space to get the OS to function again. Only for sendmail to immediately fill the space with new copies of the photo. I got a crash course on the inner workings of sendmail that day as I had to figure out how to delete the photo from the sending mail queue.

      It *almost* happened again the next day, when someone hit reply-all to the same email saying "Why are you sending me this huge picture file?" and included the original 4 MB bitmap as a quote. Fortunately I'd learned my lesson and had set up sendmail to automatically strip out any attachment over a certain size.

    5. Re:I survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had a me-too reply-all mail hell among the faculty at my University. I just binned the thread in junk mail, and the Outlook filters took care of it from there. Sure, I didn't get a bunch of mail later from people who had replied to the list, but I didn't much care, because those people weren't nearly as important as they thought they were.

    6. Re:I survived by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      We had one quite different with a Lotus Notes server. Our time server rebooted and it's motherboard battery was empty, so it basically rebooted to 1971. So the Lotus Notes server's clock was suddenly set to 1971 and when they changed the clock back Lotus went crazy and started resending every fucking email it had in storage over again. I received my welcome mail 20 minutes later and everyone was flooded with old emails for hours. It took a while to delete all of that junk.

    7. Re:I survived by WallyL · · Score: 1

      My team's mail server admin did lose his **** when the students at the university started replying-all to an email sent by the communications department with the dl in the To instead of the BCC box. The resulting thread brought down our email servers for a few hours, and for 15 minutes at first, the admin console was not even responding.

    8. Re:I survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had one at a large contractor with over 100k employees. Someone sent an email out to all from a blackberry meeting setup (server misconfigured I believe). I come to my desk in the morning and see 120 emails from people I've never heard of with the same subject line, the emails continued for another 3 hours or so, all told it was 100k * 200+ emails over the course of 5 hours. Most were the typical "remove me from this list", but there were a few good ones:

      Random woman: "Any cute single guys in the L.A. area on this list?"

      Two guys were telling each other bad (dad?) jokes.

      Couple of lonely single guys lamenting how they don't live in L.A.

      Someone sent a fake resume for IT support.

      Finally, some admin solved the problem and shot down all future Reply Alls, with a nastygram about using that button.

    9. Re:I survived by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      I survived Bedlam DL3

      Me Too!

      It wouldn't qualify as anything close to "good times," but it was definitely memorable times.

    10. Re:I survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember an email storm happening at MS in 1999, but I thought the original message was sent to a DL that included all Puget Sound employees (including contractors and vendors). So, that would have been a number well in excess of the 25k mentioned in the Bedlam link.

      I also vaguely remember that a senior manager (the V.P. of ITG?) replied-all in order to warn people that the next person who replied-all would be summarily fired. Even after the warning, reply-alls still kept coming in -- possibly sent before the V.P. sent the threat email -- and they eventually had to shut down all the Exchange servers for a day or two in order to clean up the mess.

      But, maybe my aging mind has embellished the details a bit.

      It was funny, though, to lookup the details of the people who replied-all and find that many of them were senior tech folks who should have known better. Never did hear whether anyone actually got fired.

  4. Yep, people are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This sort of thing happens all the time. You can mediate it a bit by setting the permissions on some of the global type DLs so that only certain people can use them. But people are stupid. Heck, all the time you get people putting a conference call on hold (causing music to everyone on the call). People that stupid always do a reply all.

    1. Re:Yep, people are stupid by anegg · · Score: 1

      In defense of the people who have put a conference call "on hold" with music on hold, it is not always immediately obvious to the users of the phone system that music on hold exists, or if it exists, that the phone system isn't smart enough to know that it shouldn't be played to a conference call. And I say this as someone who was the administrator of a small company phone system (100 seats), not as someone who has committed the sin of placing a conference call on hold with "music on hold" myself. I don't think this is even close to the "reply/all" stupidity.

      There really ought to be a special place in hell for the folks who came up with music on hold. This special place should be just slightly less horrible than the special place in hell for the people who came up with "advertising on hold."

    2. Re:Yep, people are stupid by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I worked in computer telephony. Personally I agree with you, but: Music on hold, with occasional sprightly reminders of how much someone cares about your call, was considered an IMPORTANT FEATURE by our customers - the people buying phone systems. After all, if callers hear silence they might think that they were disconnected.

    3. Re: Yep, people are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just email everyone@earth .ox.ac.uk if you want to tell a bunch of trumped up cunts.what you think of their elitist bullshit...

    4. Re:Yep, people are stupid by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      Music on hold I can accept. Low volume, just enough to tell me that the call hasn't been disconnected.

      What is absolutely unacceptable are the endless human voice announcements telling me how valuable my call is, or even worse, how I could use www.some.company.com to access my account and not have to wait on hold.

      First, when I hear a voice I assume someone has answered so I have to stop doing what I was doing and start listening. The first time I get used to the voice and ignore it, it's the support tech actually talking and he hangs up because I'm ignoring him. And second, if www.some.company.com was able to deal with the problem I'm calling about I WOULD NOT BE CALLING.

      This desire to have human voices telling people things really gets in the way when it is an amateur radio repeater ID. If it's the stock computer voices you can tell it's the computer. immediately. When it's the recorded voice of the repeater trustee you have to listen long enough to determine that it is an ID and not someone popping up needing to talk to someone. Ego, pure and simple. "My repeater has my voice on it ..." isn't a good reason to do it.

    5. Re:Yep, people are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ninth (seventh? I forget) level of hell is for the people who came up with the vacuous "encouragement" messages on hold.

      You know the ones. They announce that "all our representatives are busy right now", "please continue waiting", "call volumes are unusually high (for the 3rd straight year!!)" and the real kick in the teeth, "your call is important to us". Yes, your call is important to us, just not important enough to pick up the phone and talk to you. A minute is a reasonable time to wait for a pick-up. Anything over 5 minutes is unreasonable. Make me wait 10 minutes or more and I contemplate revenge, torture, and uncharitable thoughts about your parentage.

  5. I'd say by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...email was God's gift to business. Transformative, empowering, a paradigm-shift.

    It's Satan that added Reply-all, and then BCC just to continue the general fuckery.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      But bcc prevents this entire problem. If you send a message to a large distribution you should always use bcc. Then when some retard hits reply-to-all the reply is only directed to the original sender rather than the entire distribution list.

    2. Re:I'd say by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      That depends. I've gotten the response "There were BCCs on this email. Are you sure you want to reply all?"

    3. Re:I'd say by j-beda · · Score: 1

      But bcc prevents this entire problem. If you send a message to a large distribution you should always use bcc. Then when some retard hits reply-to-all the reply is only directed to the original sender rather than the entire distribution list.

      Yes and no. If you are sending a message to a large (or even small) group of addresses, using BCC prevents everyone from seeing everyone else's addresses, and thus prevents the "reply-all" troubles.

      For a mailing list system however, any message sent by chris@some-company.com to everyone@some-company.com gets sent to everyone on the list. The system may or may not be set to deliver those messages with a return address of chris@some-company.com or of everyone@some-company.com or something else, regardless of how Chris uses "bcc" or "to" or "cc" to address the original message.

      Clealy, for large mailing lists, the system should be set to not allow posting from just anyone.

    4. Re:I'd say by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      That's a *bad* server config!

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    5. Re:I'd say by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      There is also a limit (in kb, not the number of addresses) in a To: or CC: field. But I guess if you are sending mail to a listserv or alias that points to multiple addresses then that doesn't even kick in.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    6. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe it's a good server config and it's reminding you of the perils of Reply-All to Bcc'd emails?
      http://www.skipprichard.com/avoid-the-nightmare-of-the-email-blind-carbon-copy-bcc/

    7. Re:I'd say by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you send a message to a large distribution you should always use bcc.

      If you mistakenly send the email in the first place chances are you weren't hovering over the BCC field making this point irrelevant.

    8. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Satan that added Reply-all, and then BCC just to continue the general fuckery.

      BCC is fine. I filter it straight to the bit bucket.

    9. Re:I'd say by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      -1, pointless attempt to sound superior

      Advising people to use BCC is only relevant to cases where the initial long recipient list is *intentional*. In this case the initial email was accidentally sent.

    10. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use Outlook, you can change the security permission on your emails to disable reply-all. Sometimes its good when only one product manages all your mail.

    11. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe what parent meant was that the all@company.com address should have been in the BCC, and the To/From should both say the sender, or something like that.

    12. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so correct, argStyopa . . . "Reply-all" is the resurgence of the old cold war policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. I think people who use "Reply-all" should be dragged from their homes and shot. And I think iPhone users who use the "reply all" feature in texts should be hanged.

    13. Re:I'd say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would a recipient know there were BCCs? must not be normal email.

  6. Really? by Sean · · Score: 1

    Most MUAs won't accept To/CC/BCC of unlimited length.

    1. Re:Really? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Certainly it's using distribution list(s).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Really? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      In that case, it should be a simple matter of renaming the distribution list.

    3. Re:Really? by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It doesn't have to be of unlimited length. In Outlook/Exchange, at least, it's possible to have a distribution group that is handled by the server, so including the group name in the To: (or CC: or BCC:) field will send it to everyone in that group, no matter how big. My organization has a #Everyone group that does actually go to everyone. I don't know if #Everyone is protected, but there are certainly some very large distribution groups- around 1/3 of the organization- that anyone is allowed to send to.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    4. Re:Really? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      all@company.com isn't very long.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Really? by Nutria · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which requires an Emergency Change Request (which takes hours to get approved for a Sev 2).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Really? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nothing is simple when you have an "Enterprise" IT. (This means it takes as long to get anything changed as it would take you to manually shift the starship Enterprise by pushing with your hands.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    7. Re:Really? by Sean · · Score: 1

      If so, I can't believe they allow just anyone to post to it. That's insane.

    8. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the change request must be submitted and approved through the proper channel or will be automatically denied. The proper channel of course is email.

    9. Re:Really? by phorm · · Score: 1

      And doesn't get implemented because the person who would do so didn't get the email, because the email system is down, which requires the change be....

    10. Re:Really? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      The only channel of course is email.

      FTFY.

      (You must work where I work!)

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    11. Re:Really? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Wow... that's a seriously productive enterprize IT you got there. The last one I dealt with was more like how long it would take you to push the earth into a wider orbit by jumping up and down until you've added an extra day to the year.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re:Really? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is pretty good (for an enterprise IT). Has a reputation as an "elite team" here ;-)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Really? by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      My favorite is when they have "Center of Excellence" in their name. So... you were just barely formed, but your are already excellent? How exactly does that work?

  7. Perhaps... by tonyyeb · · Score: 1

    They should send out an email to everyone advising them not to reply.... Oh and don't reply to this one either or we might be forced to send another in a similar vain.

    1. Re:Perhaps... by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      They should send out an email to everyone advising them not to reply.... Oh and don't reply to this one either or we might be forced to send another in a similar vain.

      Sending messages in a similar vein would be in vain.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    2. Re:Perhaps... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Vain? Are we talking about Youssef, the guy who probably thinks that song's about him?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a set of mail servers woth its salt (and a group of sysadmins worth their salt) this would be easy to sort out. I bet they are stuck with Exchange and MCSEs. They ask for it, they get it. And when those despicable Microsoft sales reps come in next time and say "mail is dead, everyone's using Tah Cloud (mumble mumble 365) these days", upper corporate goons wil listen. Seen that at $my_company, which I'll not name, for obvious reasons.

    That said, having enough BOFH sysadmins to swarm out and smack each user having clicked "reply to all" would be some sweet revenge...

  9. Dilbert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obligatory Dilbert:

    http://dilbert.com/strip/2003-04-06

  10. About 1% of employees are this dumb by FeelGood314 · · Score: 2

    I've worked at a couple of companies that have sent out mass emails like this. My guess is that 1% of employees are stupid enough to hit "reply all" when requesting being removed from the email thread.

    I seriously doubt that only 120 people in the NHS have hit reply all. My guess is that there will eventually be a few thousand who do this. That's assuming the NHS has above average intelligence employees.

    1. Re:About 1% of employees are this dumb by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      1% of 1.2 million is 12,000 people. . just saying

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    2. Re:About 1% of employees are this dumb by Imrik · · Score: 1

      My guess is that 120 people hit reply all before they were able to disable the group.

    3. Re:About 1% of employees are this dumb by dkone · · Score: 1

      You give people too much credit. We have slightly less than 50 active users on our Exchange server. On any given email that goes out to the 'allemployees' DL there are between 1 to 4 people that reply all. It happens every single time, even if I am just sending an email out to everyone stating Server 'X' will be offline for a reboot. That will get at least one. The announcement for this years Christmas party got 4 or 5.

    4. Re:About 1% of employees are this dumb by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

      I work at an engineering company that had this happen. I saw an email with subject line "test" arrive from department.all@company and thought "wait, this actually happens in real life?" as I settled in to watch the show. To everyones credit, it actually did stay quiet for a while until some smartass replied with "did the test work". That then unleashed a flood of "take me off this list right now!!!" and "stop replying to this email!!!!" emails until someone figured out how to shut it down.

      tbh it makes for a really great method of identifying the stupid people in the company. It might be usable as a strategy for selecting potential candidates for the next round of layoffs.

    5. Re:About 1% of employees are this dumb by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I always include this note on my test emails: "Only reply if you do not receive this."

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:About 1% of employees are this dumb by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

      What kind of sysadmin are you that you would place a DL into the TO field?? Good god, man.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
  11. why is this on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this even a /. story? I'm not sure how this is news for nerds(we all know that lusers are stupid) or how this matters?(I don't have a /. story for every stupid Corp IT crisis)

    This place has really gone downhill.

    1. Re:why is this on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irony: AC complains about someone else not knowing how to properly unsubscribe/use email, while not realize the exact same solutions are on Slashdot.

    2. Re:why is this on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It matters because as nerds we understand how stupid and funny this situation is.

    3. Re: why is this on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's brought the UK'S biggest employer's email system to its knees?

    4. Re: why is this on /. by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      The UK? The only organisation in the world with more employees is the Chinese army!

      Or so those of us that pay for it are lead to believe.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    5. Re:why is this on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are you sending me this post? please remove me from you rantings.

    6. Re:why is this on /. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Why is this even a /. story?

      Because it's precisely, exactly, within Slashdot's remit. You're a twat.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  12. So common... by aicrules · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't work for a company with over a million employees but I see this happen frequently. People reply all out of rote habit, not even consciously. It's so annoying. I know one company who customized their distribution of Outlook to not have a reply all button. Short of that, my recommendation is to either protect the large distribution group so that only a select few can email it and/or making use of BCC for that group when original emails are sent so that even if people do reply to all there is no further waste of time. I tried individually shaming people when they did it for a while, sending them dumbass instructions on the location of the Reply button versus Reply to All, but that had a limited impact other than for more people to know I'm an asshole. Oh well...

    1. Re:So common... by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the other hand, if you send an e-mail to a small group of people, e.g. trying to solve a problem together, it's very annoying if one or more people to use Reply instead of Reply-All, and the rest of the group misses part of the conversation.

    2. Re:So common... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      This. I believe the correct technical solution would be to limit who is allowed to email large numbers of people and the top level groups. Their should be no possible way for the intern to email every one of your million plus employees (or really even any more than 10-20). And it would be really great for the original sender to indicate the default behavior (aka, do I want to make this a conference email, or was I just sending instructions to everyone individually.)

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not reply-all. Reply-all should be the default when discussing a problem with a small group. The problem is people who fail to use bcc when emailing a large group.

    4. Re:So common... by taustin · · Score: 1

      No, the correct response is to a) correctly configure the mail server to reject any message addressed to more than a reasonable number of people, say, 100 (or even less), and b) use mailing lists for mass messages, like people with a normal IQ.

      Whoever runs their mail server should be driven out of the profession and put in a home for the mentally impaired.

    5. Re:So common... by taustin · · Score: 1

      No, the correct response is to use a mailing list, and if you are concerned with interns sending 1.2 million people cat pictures, restrict who can use it. This has been the correct way to handle this for at about 20 years. There is never any excuse for allowing a message to be sent to 1.2 million discrete addresses. Ever.

    6. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My coworkers and I place bets whenever a reply-all chain has received 3 responses.
      Usually the winner is 8-12 total, including management's threat of written reprimands...

    7. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, and I believe ultimately the person responsible for the email server is a man named Jeremy Hunt, time for him to leave I guess.

    8. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a pop up informing the person how many people they're replying to, and requiring they type that number to continue.

    9. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telling us not to reply all is pointless. Contrary to you, for us computers are just appliances to get our work done. We've got actual work to do, that keeps us occupied 9 to 5 and you've got no idea how much mail we send. Weighing carefully before each mail whether to reply all or not just isn't an option. And the lost productivity that would be caused by people misjudging and hitting reply instead of reply all would be enormous and completely dwarf even this incident. It can take hours, sometimes even days to straighten out the mess caused by some people on the team not getting a message. No, the fault lies squarely with the system's administrators who have set things up so that this could happen and keep happening. Why are normal users even allowed to send mail to a distribution list that bloody big in the first place?

    10. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Sanford Wallace and I strongly disagree with your post !

      Capture: Irritant

    11. Re:So common... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Reply-all is email attempting to behave like a web forum (like slashdot!). If you want a group conversation, use a forum, not email.

    12. Re:So common... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It was an email that was blank except for test in the subject line sent to a subscription list called CroydonPractices, which is probably for Doctors at Croydon Health Services of Croydon University Hospital.

      "11.30am we were told that 70 or 80 people had reply-all'd to the message , ... A test email sent by accident to 850,000 NHS workers" paraphrased from NHS IT bod sends test email to 850k users – and then responses are sent 'reply all'

      an erroneous response rate of 1:1000. I suspect if more of the recipients were readers of the BOFH hosted at El Reg; the results would have brought the British Healthcare system down for months!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:So common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, the correct solution is to get out of email hell and have a meeting (webex, conf call, or God forbid; in person).

      And then still have no fucking clue what the hell is going on because your hold of Indian English is so fucking terrible that you need to have your DBAs email you after the fact to confirm what exactly he was nodding his head sideways for.

    14. Re:So common... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      E-mail has the advantage of an automatic audit trail.
      There's no blame shifting afterwards, because everyone can go back and see who said what. And less ambiguity, because it's in writing. Meetings and phone calls generally don't have those advantages, and even if recording, it's hell to try to search and find something important from a year back.

      People who are mentally impaired and can't deduce what "Reply All" will do shouldn't work in an environment that uses e-mail. A protected work environment for the mentally handicapped is in order.

  13. Classic by The-Ixian · · Score: 2

    The simple solution is to lock down the "all" distribution list so only certain (very few) senders can send mail to it. I am not sure why this would not have been done... I am actually surprised that this hasn't happened before if everyone has send access to this list....

    If course, if the distribution list was enumerated on the client prior to sending, that is a different story. But I can't imagine any client that would work reasonably with a million individual recipients.

    --
    My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    1. Re:Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, simply have approval set up so that messages to the mailing list actually get diverted to an administrator's mailbox without the users realising. They then vote to approve it and the email goes out. (It's trivial to do in MS Exchange -- it's in the Mail Flow, if I remember rightly.)

      Thus, the admin has to spend the time disapproving the dozen messages, but the cascading chain-reaction is stopped so it's not thousands of emails.

  14. It is useful heuristic by abies · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have seen it few times in big corporations I worked in. Somebody sends email to wrong group by accident and then we have 3 waves of attack:

    1) Clueless people hitting 'reply all' asking for removal from mailing group
    2) Even more clueless people hitting 'reply all' asking people to not 'reply all'
    3) "Champions" trying to save a day by putting all in BCC and telling people to not reply all, unless you put it in BCC [1]

    And then, few hours later, next timezone wakes up and things start again.

    Why is it useful? After it is obvious what is happening, you create folder called 'idiots' and redirect all these emails into that group by outlook/whatever rule. After that, if you need to deal with somebody in your organization, first check if he/she is in idiots folder and approach accordingly.

    BTW, 120 replies seems very low. I have seen mailstorms with group of 10k recipients (it was not 'all' group, just some subset of company) generate over 600 replies total in these 3 waves. 120 replies from 1.2 million looks to be technical limitation (or, maybe, there was some hero in IT department who pulled the plug fast enough...)

    [1] - My favorite is self correcting champion, which first sends 'reply all' and then does reply to that with everybody in BCC saying he should have put everybody in BCC in first place...

    1. Re: It is useful heuristic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's currently what's happening now. Exactly as described. I've received about 100 replies so far but they are coming in so slow I'd imagine there's a lot more on the way. Luckily it seems to have been picked up rather quickly and the lists deleted at least stemming the tide.

    2. Re:It is useful heuristic by Megane · · Score: 1

      After it is obvious what is happening, you create folder called 'idiots' and redirect all these emails into that group by outlook/whatever rule.

      When I worked at Cisco back in the early 2Ks, we had reply-all storms every few months. Everyone joked that perpetuating them was the best way to get onto the "bottom 5%" list.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:It is useful heuristic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just reply to the sender, twice. He/she had it coming.

    4. Re:It is useful heuristic by morkk · · Score: 1

      I like to reply-all saying:

      Standby for the redundancy applications in 3...2..1.

      Some people are offended by this.

    5. Re:It is useful heuristic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After it is obvious what is happening, you create folder called 'idiots' and redirect all these emails into that group by outlook/whatever rule.

      When I worked at Cisco back in the early 2Ks, we had reply-all storms every few months. Everyone joked that perpetuating them was the best way to get onto the "bottom 5%" list.

      It was still happening as late as 2015. What typically happened was that the email was sent after work hours Pacific time, and so it would be seen first by the Indian and Chinese offices. Those tended to have people less familiar with US email habits, and quite often people who were contractors. So there would be anywhere from 10-50 reply-all requests to be removed from the list. Next up were the European offices, where the number of brusque Eastern-bloc types was high enough to garner a batch of "why are you using reply-all?" messages, Finally, it would cycle back to eh US East Coast, where one wag would post a recipe just as a joke.

      What was really amusing is that there was one reply-all storm that happened less than 2 months after the previous one - you'd think that the memories would be longer than that.

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. This gets expensive... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bean counter at a local hospital sent out an email to everyone that explained the cost in lost productivity for each "reply all" email was $0.08 per person. Not surprisingly, someone hit the "reply all" button to respond that the bean counter's email cost the hospital $800 in lost productivity. It went downhill from there. Not sure if the tab was $80,000 or $800,000 in lost productivity when everyone stopped hitting "reply all" button. Executive management wasn't amused.

  17. The importance of BCC by watermark · · Score: 1

    And this highlights one of the many uses of BCC

  18. this has happened many times at Northrop Grumman by pezpunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    i worked at NG for 7 years, and there were several instances (the last one being in 2010) where email system company-wide was crippled or knocked offline by an email that was sent to the wrong mailing list. apparently, there was one available that included literally every single person in the system (probably about 100,000 people).

    i remember one morning in about 2008 or so, getting an email addressed to some team i wasn't a part of, seeing the "CC" list was several miles long, and i knew instantly what was going to happen. i guess the "first post" instinct in me acted up for the first time ever. i knew we were all already doomed, so i hit reply-all and simply posted: "oh no, not again." i did manage to be first, but before i could blink, i had over a thousand new emails all saying some variation of "WHAT IS THIS?" "REMOVE ME FROM THIS LIST" and "STOP REPLYING FOR GODS SAKE". my new emails hit 30,000 in a few minutes.

    the entire NG email system was down for more than a day.

    two days later i got called into my boss's office and he explained that top-tier management at NG had demanded that i be fired. my "oh no not again" was the last email most people saw before the system exploded. a very heated conversation between my supervisors and NG executives apparently just barely saved my job, but my supervisors were not pleased either and mentioned this would go on my permanent record (i thought that was just a high school thing). it didn't matter that i didn't actually do anything to cause the crash. i had merely made myself visible at the wrong time, and NG wanted someone's head.

    so glad i don't work there now.

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
  19. Happened to us once; hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A typo in a e-mail address which autocorrected to the group e-mail address which included every single employee of the company all over the world; 10s of thousands of people. What's worse is to the average person it simply appeared the e-mail was sent to them alone by mistake rather than including everyone so people simply replied stating it was sent the wrong person.
    I don't remember the exact number of replies that we all got but it was easily a good few hundred a day for 2-3 days, all while making the mail server crawl as it was one server for the whole company.

    In a horribly boring desk job it was the highlight of our year.

  20. Saw this at McKesson by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    And only a small division with a thousand or so employees.

    There had to be threats of discipline from upper management to get it to stop.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  21. 1.2 million people!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alexa, release that Super Bowl commercial featuring Missy Elliott.

  22. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

    Probably because the CTO knew that it is his head that should roll since the email system that allowed such fuckery happened on his watch.

    Got to find a low level scapegoat.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  23. Still happening in 2016? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember this in the late late 90s and at a shit Fortune 100 bank in the early 2000s. The stupidity was especially nauseating.

    I am shocked it still happens in 2016. This is MS Exchange, I presume? It's completely unacceptable. It's been a solved problem for over a decade.

    Another data point that shows the government attracts some of the worst employees.

    1. Re:Still happening in 2016? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The NHSmail service runs on Microsoft Exchange. A statement on its service status page said:

      An issue with a distribution list has meant that several test emails have been widely received by users. This has been exacerbated by recipients replying in response and increasing the volume of emails associated with the list. The impact of this issue has meant that some users are unable to access OWA due to the volume of emails being circulated. The distribution list has been removed and associated emails are being traced and cleared.

      R, whose signature block lists them as a senior associate ICT delivery facilitator at South East CSU, had understandably turned their mobile phone off by the time El Reg phoned to ask if they had realised the error.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Still happening in 2016? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Another data point that shows the government attracts some of the worst employees.

      I suspect you will rapidly forget any evidence to the contrary.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  24. It could be worse by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I get an email for a division-wide thing.

    I get a copy from my VP's admin, specifically targeting my team in case we weren't on the original distribution list.

    I get a copy of this from my manager, since he doesn't want me to miss this.

    I also get a copy of the original from a corporate level special interest group I'm part of.

    Then I get a copy from a former team member. Just in case I was left of their distribution, since they left our team but believe they may be getting team emails that current team members are not.

    And a copy from their manager, with a note to be sure the distribution list I cannot administer is properly updated to get these mails from the list they should not be and indeed are not part of. Just in case.

    Then I get a copy from an interested team leader who wants to make sure we are in the loop.

    And another from their #1 team member, who looks out for us.

    And finally my cubicle mate leans over and tell me 'hey, did you get the email from......'

    And so I have a 14GB .OST that i cannot backup locally due to GPO. and i get warnings occasionally that my file will be groomed back to an unspecified maximum size. Some day, real soon now. Right after they encrypt my files for no apparent reason, in accordance with some policy I cannot get a copy of.

    I'm not bitter, really. I feel for the corporate security and cloud services guys. They can't fix stupid.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:It could be worse by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      Did you get a copy of the memo about the new TPS report coversheets?

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:It could be worse by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Did you get a copy of the memo about the new TPS report coversheets?

      I tried that particular response once in a relatively small company spread over 4 or 5 locations. The next month's "Company E-newsletter" included a little note, which I quote as accurately as I can:

      " To the person, you know who you are, who thinks he's funny. We don't appreciate your sense of humor." Yep, an anonymous callout from an anonymous author.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re: It could be worse by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Actually I've already printed the new cover sheet.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:It could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using your email as a filing system, as convenient as it is, pretty bad idea :-) Lawyers and the bad guys love to get their hands on email, there is so much lovely stuff to discover in there.

      Our company has a small 1.5GB mailbox limit, and 60 day retention policy that also applies to internal IM. If you need to keep something, you move it out of email/IM into the appropriate internal wiki or file server. This wasn't made up by some self appointed department that likes to punish users either, these policies are handed down from the legal and security teams. Considering the Exchange system has around 160,000 mailboxes, this also allows the messaging team to manage and plan for the server farm of Exchange systems and their storage.

      For a company with around 120,000 employees, this doesnt cause any real problems, people learn to manage their email better. From an IT support perspective, we dont have to deal with exploding PST files, giant OST files melting down, people losing stuff in their email to corruption.

    5. Re: It could be worse by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'll make sure you get a copy of the memo.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    6. Re:It could be worse by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      We had one of these with a list of about 7K people. Legitimate list, legitimate e-mail, but not germane to each other.
      Total shitstorm that lasted 4 or 5 days. I finally had enough and did a re-all with a meme I made with the Dos Equis guy:

      I don't always ReAll to liststorms
      (pic)
      but when I do it's to post a new meme

      I got spoken to about that...
      I also got about 20 (not reAll) replies saying how awesome that was.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re: It could be worse by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      We have to retain email for legal reasons no matter how big our mailboxes are.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  25. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

    Back in I think 1996, when I was in the Air Force, a contractor sent to everybody on base the dancing baby animation. I think it was several megabytes in size. Nobody even had to reply to it for the mail system to crash.

  26. Email is not a substitute for a paper memo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They would have saved money (read: time) at this point if they just distributed memoranda on paper.

    1. Re:Email is not a substitute for a paper memo. by j-beda · · Score: 2

      They would have saved money (read: time) at this point if they just distributed memoranda on paper.

      To err is human.

      To really fuck up requires a computer.

  27. Email Client by speedplane · · Score: 1

    I'm curious what email client they use at the DHS. I feel like Gmail or Outlook would totally explode if you tried cc-ing 1.2M people.

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    1. Re:Email Client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Distribution lists are expanded on the server side. Your client's not going to explode if you send an email to all.users@nhs.uk (or whatever). The server, on the other hand...

    2. Re:Email Client by speedplane · · Score: 1

      Distribution lists are expanded on the server side. Your client's not going to explode if you send an email to all.users@nhs.uk (or whatever). The server, on the other hand...

      Was a distribution list used here? If that was the case, the IT department could have just shut down the list and problem solved.

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    3. Re:Email Client by niks42 · · Score: 1

      They did shut down the list. Unfortunately there was about an hour's worth of emails launched before they did. I am still receiving emails sent at 9:23 this morning; I am pretty sure that this particular distribution list can't be used any more, but I suspect it will take most of tonight and tomorrow to get the backlog sorted out. It's only Exchange running this - 190M emails might take a while to send.

  28. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    this is why i simply ignore these emails

    a lot simpler than getting outraged and emailing everyone to be taken off

  29. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    yeah, when i was at Vicenza, Italy in the US Army around this time we did the same thing. only we did it on purpose to try to crash the email system

  30. Re: out of the office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear sender,

    I'm out of the office from 13 November until the 26th December,
    Feel free to contact my colleagues for further information
    Sincerely,
    Paul
    from the administration dept.
    (ps, if it's about the form 426a, you should have filed the administration forms 293b and 732a , we apologize for the inconvienance )

  31. Server Admin Needs to be Fired by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

    There is no earthly reason why everyone should be allowed to send emails with 1.2 million recipients. Any email with more than some reasonable number (say maybe 100ish? Certainly not more that 1000 even with that big if an org) should not be allowed to be sent except from a very small list of authorized users.

    Unless of course management caught a bad case of the dumbass and forced the admins to leave that setting on. In which case the managers should be fired.

    1. Re:Server Admin Needs to be Fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a manager screws up, it's an underling that is fired.

  32. Blame the provider: by pj2541 · · Score: 1

    I blame the email provider (Microsoft, I assume in this case.) The "Reply all" button should have never been included without some sort of throttle/warning mechanism. Something as simple as a pop-up saying "You are about to Reply all to x people. Are you sure you want to do this?" with the message and threshold number configurable by an administrator. Really hard core admins could set the message to something like "Management has determined that all useless emails will be counted, and the offender terminated when the count reaches xxx. Have a nice day."

  33. Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the second-most retarded thing going on in the world today.

  34. Re:Isn't this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure, but it's definitely what happens when you get on a Democratic Party mailing list.

    Fucking annoying. Had to change my email address because of those whiny shits.

  35. NHS Who? by rossdee · · Score: 2

    If /. was a British site I would assume the UK Govt health service, but its American, and the first thing that came up when I googled was National Honor Society
    Theres also quite a few schools using that TLA and the National Highway System

    1. Re:NHS Who? by asylumx · · Score: 1
      Did you google that before bothering to read the second sentence of the summary?

      A "test" email was accidentally sent to everyone who works at the UK health service...

    2. Re:NHS Who? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The NHS is the fifth largest employer in the world. It's significant on a global scale.

      National Honor Society may have been the first link, but when I tried to Google "NHS", the rest of the page contained links relating to the UK's National Health Service, including links to this email issue.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  36. Queue the Alt-Right anti-NHS diatribe in 3,2,1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Queue Alt-Right diatribe against socialized medicine in 3...2...1

    Having used the NHS in the UK, and the US medical system, I can unequivocally say the NHS so, so much better. Better healthcare, lower wait times, and way better costs: about 1/3 of what it costs in the US per capita for healthcare, and it wasn't billed directly to me. My NHS contribution from my paycheck is far less than copays and insurance premiums I paid in the US to boot. But those facts will no doubt not prevent the Republicans screaming and insisting on the opposite, and dismissing facts they don't like as "anectdotal" (and while my personal experience, and those of thousands of others, may be "anectdotal," the reduced cost and better healthcare, as measured by any number of metrics, are not).

  37. Blame the IT, not the users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use something like this or similar in your MTA.

    define(`confMAX_RCPTS_PER_MESSAGE', x)

    Done.

  38. But did you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    get the TPS report done correctly?

  39. We had a reply allpocalypse at... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a few years ago. It was great fun.

  40. Re:Queue the Alt-Right anti-NHS diatribe in 3,2,1. by fche · · Score: 1

    "Having used the NHS in the UK, and the US medical system, I can unequivocally say ..."

    Who cares, anecdote dude.

  41. Re:Isn't this ... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Fucking annoying. Had to change my email address because of those whiny shits.

    You could have unsubscribed. No need to play the victim game.

  42. Simple solution you idiots by Bugler412 · · Score: 2

    If you allow your large distribution lists to be used by all, you are handing your own users a loaded weapon with a round chambered. You'd think professional email sysadmins would know this, sigh

    1. Re:Simple solution you idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't assume the sysadmins would not know this. I've worked in places where I've pleaded with senior management to allow me to restrict who can send to large distribution groups and got an answer that they wanted to leave it open to help foster team communication. Then someone would send an email to the whole company outlining the reasons they were resigning from such a shitty company. HR would storm in asking why we allow everyone to send to the whole company group. I would show them the email trail from last time happened and I explained that my hands were tied by senior management and that I would be more than happy to put restrictions in place if they can obtain approval. This whole gong show would be repeated every few months.

    2. Re:Simple solution you idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo - EVERY Exchange admin that has distribution lists should Read the F Manual, especially the section labelled "Message Approval."

      That cuts the problem off -- emails to the distribution list are diverted instead to an administrator, who in turn approves or denies the emails. The reply-all cascade is then cut off.

      Frankly, any exchange administrator who has this happen on their watch deserves to be fired for incompetence. The controls are RIGHT THERE.

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. Not Reply-All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way this is a reply-all problem, because I refuse to believe the From field had 1 million addresses. People just hit "Reply", and it went to the list. So, this problem could have been avoided if the idiots had used a "Reply-to" field with any emails sent through that list.

  45. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it didn't matter that i didn't actually do anything to cause the crash.

    Actually, you did so something to cause the crash: you hit the reply all button on a message that had a CC list several miles long. Granted, you weren't the only one to do so, but you were definitely contributing to the crash.

  46. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  47. Simple? by daninaustin · · Score: 2

    Nothing is simple when you have a million users. Sure, it's quite easy to do a quick search and delete on a small number of mailboxes but for a million? It's a shit ton of servers and mailboxes to search through. At least it works better than it used to... Still, i'm surprised that they didn't restrict who could send to the distribution group (I"m pretty sure they are using MS Exchange.) There are lots of examples for scripts to do the search & delete but it probably has to be broken up into lots of smaller batches to avoid killing servers or hitting memory limits. Get-Mailbox -OrganizationalUnit "domain.local/Users" -resultsize unlimited | Search-Mailbox -SearchQuery 'Subject:"PDF version of memo" ' , 'From:"email@domain.com” ',”Sent:03/02/2015" –DeleteContent -TargetMailbox “target@domain.com” -TargetFolder “Delete” -loglevel full

    1. Re: Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NHS has over 1 million employees!? Time to start firing some fuckers.

    2. Re: Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our department is open slather.

      Send anything you want to everyone@earth.ox.ac.uk.

      Yes, we use exchange also. #1 university in the world in 2016 run by a pack of retards.

    3. Re: Simple? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      NHS has over 1 million employees!? Time to start firing some fuckers.

      From the NHS site: The NHS employs more than 1.5 million people, putting it in the top five of the world’s largest workforces, together with the US Department of Defence, McDonalds, Walmart and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. The NHS in England is the biggest part of the system by far, catering to a population of 54.3 million and employing around 1.2 million people. Of those, the clinically qualified staff include 150,273 doctors, 40,584 general practitioners (GPs), 314,966 nurses and health visitors, 18,862 ambulance staff, and 111,127 hospital and community health service (HCHS) medical and dental staff. The NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland employs 161,415; 84,000 and 66,000 people respectively.

    4. Re: Simple? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      1.2 million employees to serve 53 million customers is really not that high.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re: Simple? by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      It is when nearly half are not "doers" in the system - non-clinical staff. That means for every doctor, nurse, gp, and hospital staff member, there is a bureaucrat jockeying a desk.

      I work at a retailer with >100k employees. Our corporate office staff is under 5k.

      The NHS clearly needs an efficiency expert to come slash office jobs.

    6. Re: Simple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I mean that number is total BS. I think you'll find that lab techs, porters etc are actually very necessary and they aren't clinical.

      Also, my wife is a medic and she is now spending more of her time doing admin stuff instead of clinical work because someone thought that it'd be more efficient to sack the secretaries. That's medical school plus specialist training to end up writing letters instead of seeing patients.

    7. Re:Simple? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The simplest thing is to go to your hubs and restrict the max recipients on emails. Then every reply all gets rejected. Once the issue is fixed, you setup another receive connector that allows large recipient lists, and limit access by login.

      What is so hard about this?

      Deleting the mails afterwards is difficult, but why bother?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  48. A well-known email anti-pattern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://leanpub.com/email-antipatterns

    Never reply to all unless you mean it.

    1.

    Dear all,
    due to the current economic situation we must reduce everyone's salaries and will begin enacting our early retirement program.
    Sincerely, Your CEO.

    2.

    Dear finance department members,
    you will get your bonuses as planned, and do not worry: the retirement program that has been just announced will not affect our department.
    Sincerely, Your CFO.

    3.

    Dear IT department members,
    we have decided to outsource the finance department, and do not worry: you are getting their bonuses.
    Sincerely, Your CTO.

    P.S. Oops, did I just send that to all?

  49. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  50. Re:Isn't this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've successfully unsubscribed, you need to share your method with the world.

    I donated a couple bucks in 2008, an I've lost count of the number of times I've "unsubscribed" and received a confirmation email of unsubscribing.

    I still get emails.

    It was a joke on The Daily Show in 2012, and it's probably the real reason Trump won the election: Millions of people who are pissed off at the Democrats for not unsubscribing them from their spam lists.

  51. Re:Isn't this ... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    If you've successfully unsubscribed, you need to share your method with the world.

    Scroll down to the bottom of the email, click on the unsubscribe link, and follow the directions on the webpage. That simple.

  52. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was there for that. I thought it was you MJ but since you still work there, you must have been someone else. There was one back in the earlier 2000's which ended with one my wise ass co-workers posting a very large joke about engineers in a bar. I think by the time everyone started reading it, it gave them enough time to rethink about a reply and no further mails were sent out.

  53. Atos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is there any way that this can be blamed on Atos?

  54. The Phantom Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are truly in the darkest timeline.

  55. only 0.01% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of the receivers used reply all. That's not bad.

  56. subscribe mailinglist to itself by tommeke100 · · Score: 2

    Back in the 90s I was in college and the CS department implemented some mailing-lists per course and one for the whole department (this was on a Unix server). Someone was smart enough to subscribe the mailing-list to itself (and they didn't saw it coming). He successfully mail bombed all the accounts in the department and crashed the server :). Evidently the CS department was not amused, proclaiming they would certainly find the prankster but back in those days you could just probably have done this by telnet-ting the smtp server so nope ...

    Another classic in big companies (and has happened several times at one I worked for) is people trying to send an e-mail to a department in the company like HR, finding a list named something like "HR_Dallas" in the global address listing not knowing this is not the HR Dallas department but rather the list that sends an e-mail to all Dallas employees. Yep, you just send your private confidential mail to all the employees :-)

  57. Hehehe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have replied with a 15MB embedded picture.

  58. Testing by Nogrial · · Score: 1

    Testing, testing, testing

    https://youtu.be/_Cmv58lTWgU

  59. Infinite loop by necronom426 · · Score: 1

    I worked at a place where someone went on maternity leave and had an Out of Office set up that somehow ended up causing an infinite loop as soon as someone sent her an email. I forget how it happened, but it was fun watching hundreds and thousands of emails appearing in everyone's inbox for a few minutes until they pulled the plug on it.

    1. Re:Infinite loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once worked at a place that also had a similar problem, but the Out-of-Office auto response got sent to someone who was also going out of their office, and their auto response got sent back to the original sender. This created an infinite loop that caused the company email system to crash when the email server ran out of disk space. Unfortunately, that was also the main file server for the company... Nobody got anything done for a couple of days while they figured out what happened and cleaned up the mess. They eventually put the email server on its own system so it couldn't crash everything else the next time someone screwed up the email, which of course, they did...

  60. When I was in college.... by Dputiger · · Score: 1

    Our study abroad administrator didn't understand how email worked, didn't know how email *lists* worked, and didn't know you could suppress the email field via BCC.

    She hand-typed the email address of every single student into a standard CC email field at a time when we only had something like 300KB of space for our *entire* email. The header alone was larger than that, given that we had over 2000 students. And *that* was before the "Reply-Alls" started rolling in. You could still send mail with your email storage full, it just wouldn't save the outgoing message, so the entire server filled up in minutes. Response time went through the floor. It took IT all afternoon to sort the whole thing out.

    And then, two days later, she did it again.

  61. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. poster

  62. Re:Isn't this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask someone that sits near you about email rules and spam filters. Someone else already mentioned UNSUBSCRIBE, so ask about that too. If the person is too busy with Excel, ask someone more computer oriented.

  63. Government running things ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    The underlying premise is the Government knows how to orchestrate all this health activity better than ordinary people.

    You see the government can spot the wastefulness of giving cataract medication to someone before they go blind in one eye. (A true NHS policy, btw).

    And the government understands how politicians should get large lump sums of money for the more people get put on the kill lists. (Part of the VA/Walter Reed thing).

    And if everyone was enlightened as the Government, they would email bomb each other in waves of sophisticated confusion everyday, just like the NHS here.

    But ordinary people are not as enlightened as the Government.

    1. Re:Government running things ... by bargainsale · · Score: 1

      What is this "cataract medication" of which you speak?
      Last I heard, the only thing for cataracts was surgery. I'm an eye surgeon. That's what I'm going to be doing tomorrow morning. I hope. The organisation failed to replace our microsurgical instruments to cut costs (you need several sets to run an operating list) and last week I had to cancel half the operations.

      The thing about not doing cataract operations if the other eye could still see well has never been NHS policy. It *has* been implemented by individual health boards because they had no bloody money to pay for it because our wonderful government thinks that we should have a system like you enlightened Americans where the insurance companies in the middel can rip off both the sick and the health workers and make big donations to the ruling party from their pickings. It is deliberately starving the NHS of funding in order to drive people into private healthcare.

      This has nothing, absolutely nothing, with whether government knows better than ordinary people. In fact, it's driven by government ideologues who want to destroy health care provision for everyone too poor to support them with big fat donations. I believe you have such creatures in the USA too?

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    2. Re:Government running things ... by bargainsale · · Score: 1

      Incidentally nobody sent *me* this famous email. What's the deal? Why aren't I on this mailing list? Was it something I said?
      Perhaps I only imagine I work for the NHS ...

      --
      Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
    3. Re:Government running things ... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Your system is not exactly the envy of the fucking world, now is it? A medium-income middle-class family in the US is one serious illness away from being fucking paupers. Amazing setup you have. Can't afford treatment? Enjoy dying muthafucka!

      Yeah, you keep yours. It's working great for you.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    4. Re:Government running things ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Not cataracts, my apologies.

      AMT. A different (less well known) cause of blindness.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      Insurance companies profit margins are 6%, which is pathetic. Government workers are afficiandos of pocketing inordinate sums of money for nothing. You've bought into the deception.

    5. Re:Government running things ... by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Not cataracts, my apologies. AMT. A different (less well known) cause of blindness. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

  64. Matter of Prespective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its email systems are running "very slow today."

    Actually I think their email systems were running faster than they ever had before. Well to be annoying, one would hope they run full-speed at all times, so faster and slower are the improper terms to use.

  65. If they used Exchange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it would be 1 message, per reply, and a bunch of extra pointers to it. This it wouldn't be "140 million needless emails"

    Also, it's a piece of cake to go in and script removal of the message(s). It's pretty easy to clear them from regular pop/imap too.

  66. That sounds bogus by dskoll · · Score: 1

    It's obviously impossible to specify 1M+ recipients on a To: or Cc: header, so there must be an alias or list expansion that goes to all. Simply disable that alias until things calm down. It's not rocket science.

  67. I love these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to get in a conversation with someone on them. I knew what I was doing, but I was having fun holding a convo.

    "Lets play a quiet game. Everyone has to not say anything."

    "okay!"

    "No, you lose."

    "Why?"

    "Because you said something."

    One smartass is bad enough, but if you get two, its all over.

  68. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by Whorhay · · Score: 1

    Sometime in the 2000's an email made the rounds with a large power point slide show of pictures depicting a foam fire suppressant system test that went better than expected. I want to say that the attachment was 35 megs but that seems a bit over the top. Anyways the unit from whence the photos originated was the subject of a lot of mockery among airmen everywhere though there wasn't any re-alls going on with it that I saw. Within a day or two though an engineer from that group sent out an email seemingly across the entire Air Force insisting the test went perfectly as planned and that everyone should stop laughing about it and wasting Air Force resources forwarding the email.

  69. NHS WHO by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1

    The NHS and the WHO collaborate, but they are different organizations. Both have doctors, Dr NHS and Dr WHO is what they are called.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  70. Help desk helping by niks42 · · Score: 1

    I perticularly liked the help desk emails going out to the same distribution list saying 'Your incident has been raised with the Help Desk. Your incident number is 5235" ..

  71. you don't know the alt-right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The alt-right is a national socialist movement. They are explicitly for things like the NHS. They argue that it's much easier to have things like the NHS when you have an ethnically homogeneous state.

    I can imagine a globalist libertarian like MILO would be against the NHS. That's one reason why he's not alt-right... the other reasons are because he's a kike, a faggot, and a ni99er lover.

  72. 24 Megabyte "TO:" line by shadowp157 · · Score: 1

    Anyone else want to check my math, but assuming the average email address is 20 characters long (that's on the low side from what I can find), the list of recipients on each email should be about 24 Megabytes? That's a lot of bandwidth even without these ridiculous quantities. Or is it just a mailing list name on the "TO" line and the mail-server looks up all 1.2 million addresses from its own table?

  73. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  74. Had this happen once, with a simple "fix" by iivel · · Score: 1

    The 4 star was on the distro and replied all saying that any further replies would result in the person and their supervisor having to explain themselves to him tge next week. Was dead quiet after that & gave the mail server admins time to fix the underlying issue.

  75. I feel their pain by dhartshorn · · Score: 1

    Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, my secretary did a broadcast email of 100MB in photos to my entire company. Our home-brew mail server practically exploded.

  76. not always "reply-all" if sender is list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my company has the list address show up as the sender, so hitting normal reply will send your reply to the whole list. Same problem, and all the out of office messages also go back to the list, again and again. Nothing better than 10k emails waiting in every inbox.

    people argue that they didn't hit reply-all, so it isn't their fault. Why this still happens cracks me up. It has been a known problem for over a decade. IT administrators think they're worth 100k + / year.

  77. Re:this has happened many times at Northrop Grumma by pezpunk · · Score: 1

    oh please, if i hadn't replied, the other 100,000 replies would have still happened. i knew they were already on their way. it's not like i could have stopped it.

    --
    i could live a little longer in this prison
  78. What is their mail admin being paid to do? by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

    We had something similar happen at a previous employer. They took exchange down for 2 or 3 minutes while they did some sort of cascade delete and all traces of the e-mail were gone from the entire company.

  79. It's True! by Whatchamacallit · · Score: 1

    People are stupid... This happens at many employers. People still reply to all, it's really annoying. You simply cannot rely on people to not reply all, be smart. When sending out email to a large number of people you absolutely MUST USE the BCC line instead of TO. That way they can't reply all to everyone on distribution. Just leave that TO line blank...

  80. Re:I survived IDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internal Denial of Service? Hmmm. 2 Days you say? A pair of out of office replies ....

  81. Filter by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    I know brexit was supposed to brink UK back to stone age, but can't the NHS IT staff just filter an address server-side?

  82. There is a #4 in your list that I have seen.... by gosand · · Score: 1

    4) after it has all been resolved, and things are back to normal, those people who were on vacation return to work and start it all over again by doing a 'reply all' asking to be removed from the list.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.