back to article US defense forces no match for the unstoppable fiend known as Reply-All

Thirteen thousand members of the United States military were reportedly caught up in a Reply-All email storm in early February. Khaki-hued news and recruitment site Military.com last week published an account of the email swarm penned by a serving member of the Army who was granted anonymity to avoid backlash from brass. The …

  1. chuckufarley Silver badge

    Ageism is alive and well...

    ...

    "There are far too many technically illiterate captains who would benefit from learning how to use Microsoft Outlook (particularly how to set up sorting rules) instead of replying like boomers using new technology," the anonymous author opined.

    Boomers made this technology. If you can't thank them then at the very least do not insult them.

    1. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: Ageism is alive and well...

      Don't shoot the messenger.

    2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Re: Ageism is alive and well...

      Not to mention : what the hell do sorting rules have to do with Reply All ?

      Besides, this is an old problem. It was a problem when boomers were young, and it will likely be a problem when today's millenials have become boomers as well.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Ageism is alive and well...

        Besides, this is an old problem. It was a problem when boomers were young, and it will likely be a problem when today's millenials have become boomers as well.

        And the solution is equally as old; if you have a distribution list with x thousand people in it then require approval for messages sent to the group.

        /end problem

        1. MrDamage

          Re: Ageism is alive and well...

          Or, you know, use BCC.

      2. Marty McFly Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Ageism is alive and well...

        Sorting is a solution looking for a problem. You know, where Google & Microsoft use AI to help you manage your inbox better. Of course at a loss of privacy to big data, but we won't talk about that.

      3. Blackjack Silver badge

        Re: Ageism is alive and well...

        There should be an option to hide "Reply All" by default.

    3. Johnb89

      Re: Ageism is alive and well...

      I've been mischievously using Reply To All since the author was in short trousers, I'll bet. Perhaps he/she/they should stick to Instasnap.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Ageism is alive and well...

        Computers were invented in 2018 when somebody attached a keyboard to an iPad and so people over 30 obviously won't understand them

        1. Mark 85

          Re: Ageism is alive and well...

          Computers were invented in 2018 when somebody attached a keyboard to an iPad and so people over 30 obviously won't understand them

          Say what??? I'm 75 and worked in IT for decades. I know others my age who have also. So we don't understand them????

          1. jmch Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Ageism is alive and well...

            Well, I'm 85 and worked in IT for well over a century!!

            whooosh!!!

        2. RobThBay
          Happy

          Re: Ageism is alive and well...

          LOL

    4. fajensen

      Re: Ageism is alive and well...

      Using "Reply All" as the true Besserwisser.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ageism is alive and well...

      It was / is a tiny fraction of boomers that made many of the technologies that we use daily. I wouldn't get to bent over the description. The literacy has increased through the generations.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ageism is alive and well...

        Literacy in terms of taps and emojis, sure. Understanding? I think not.

        (and btw, iPad keyboards existed in 2010)

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I remember a few years ago now working for healthcare provider when this very thing happened. Whilst extremely childish once it gets going it can be hilarious especially when those at the top start getting annoyed at actually having to do something for a change. It can also be especially spicy when you have people due to leave within a few days.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When it all started

    "The report states that the Reply-All storm started when an Army captain replied to a message from a distribution list called "FA57 Voluntary Transfer Incentive Program"."

    Actually, one would argue it really started when a fuckwit sent an email to 13 000 recipients in the To:/cc:. Out of 13 000 of whatever population of users, you always have 1-10 % who will reply to all !

    Recently, I received an email from a certain dude, using a company dist list I knew had about 1 000 recipients, and promptly realized this dist list was open to everyone while it really shouldn't be. It was obviously minutes before the storm would start. I contacted the guy immediately and he managed to lock-up the dist list before the storm.

    Close shave !

    1. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: When it all started

      Yes, agreed, distribution lists like that one should be locked down.

      That would've stopped this mess in its tracks.

      1. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: When it all started

        Given we've known about distribution list reply all storms for a few decades (remember having the back in the 1990s) it is perhaps a little surprising that they are still happening in the sense the email server (Exchange?) either does not by default permit reply-all or reply is to a single pre-designated "reply to" email address.

        Not saying that people wouldn't find ways to send to all receiptents on a distribution list, but one-click reply-all?

        1. doublelayer Silver badge

          Re: When it all started

          I think most if not all servers support distribution lists that only send messages from a specific set of authorized senders, but the problem is that you have to turn that on. Someone has to populate the list, and there is no way to set the default programmatically so the default is everyone. It's easy to set it up correctly, but easier to not bother, so plenty of people don't bother.

          1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

            Re: When it all started

            Another one to catch people out is that Microsoft Teams, and the default cretin behaviour that Microsoft inflict by default, is for distribution lists (groups) to be created whenever Microsoft Teams feels likes creating one. Which it does depending on whatever incantation in the user unfriendly interface that is Microsoft Teams. This creates lots of extra distribution lists/groups, every one of which is a potential public Reply-All storm. Most won't be, of course, but in a suitable size organisation some very quickly become large enough to be problemetic.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: When it all started

              Ah, I was having a reasonable day until I read ... Teams

              It is indeed a fetid excuse for a UI, but that's not all. As an aside, we are also inflicted with an Oracle cloud based HR system which seriously challenges MS in the "how not to do a UI" contest.

              A while ago (AC for obvious reasons), I got an email at work saying I'd been added to a Team. Then the queries, "WTF ?" questions, "please unsubscribe me" requests, got started. Then someone posted that a new version of a tool we had accounts with required that we be members of a Team - and hence we had all (some thousands I believe) had been added. This message was quite clear, and also said that you had to remain in the team - if you removed yourself then said tool would not work for you.

              Clearly no-one read this message - they still kept demanding to be removed, questioned WTF it was about, and all that.

              Even after someone else had repeated the "don't remove yourself or the tool will stop working" and added that if you do, you can do it yourself by (insert list of instructions) - the angry responses carried on for a while.

              Just to add, there are two types of user - those that have accidentally put lots of addresses into the To: field, and those that just haven't done it yet. [sfx: whistles innocently]I'm in the former camp.

              And some of us of a certain age will recall when it was still common to generate non-deliverable messages in response to spam to non-existant mailboxes etc. Some of us will recall what it's like when your email happens to be the one the spammer picked to be the From: address - and you get the hundreds of messages/day backscatter.

  4. xyz Silver badge

    Acting like privates...

    Does that mean like dicks?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Acting like privates...

      Does that mean like dicks?

      Don't be sexist, it could also mean like a bunch of pussies...

      <coughs>

  5. Conundrum1885

    Heard a joke

    An Army, Navy and Marine were taking a leak.

    The Army zipped up, washed his hands, dried them and left.

    The Marine just zipped up and walked out.

    The Navy zipped up, washed, dried and left.

    Outside, they were heard talking, "We know you're in a hurry but not washing, seriously?!"

    The Army said to the Marine "In the Army we take hygiene very seriously"

    "As do we" said the Navy.

    Upon hearing this, the Marine said "In the Marines, we learn not to p**s on our hands in the first place."

    1. seven of five Silver badge

      Re: Heard a joke

      Yeah, they have the other branches to piss on them so they don't have to.

    2. Potemkine! Silver badge
      Headmaster

      Re: Heard a joke

      I heard this anecdote about Winston Churchill

    3. Persona Silver badge

      Re: Heard a joke

      Sometime it's more appropriate to wash your hands before having the piss ....... particularly if you have been using something like Veet.

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: Heard a joke

        particularly if you have been using something like Veet

        Or chopping chillies.

        Once was enough!

        1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

          Re: Heard a joke

          That's something that many of us learn through practical experience.

          Not to do it the third time.

    4. Eclectic Man Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Heard a joke

      Actually piss can be sterile (unless you are suffering form a urinary tract infection). In T E Lawrence's 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom' he recounts how once when he was wounded one of his Arab colleagues urinated on the wound as a 'rude antiseptic'.

      "The fate of bacteria in human urine was studied after inoculation of small numbers of Escherichia coli and other bacterial strains commonly implicated in urinary tract infection. Urine from normal individuals was often inhibitory and sometimes bactericidal for growth of these organisms. Antibacterial activity of urine was not related to lack of nutrient material as addition of broth did not decrease inhibitory activity. "

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC297400/ (Warning seriously scientific article - I don't even understand the abstract.)

      1. Cirdan

        Re: Heard a joke -- Urea concentration

        Nice reference!

        The article basically states (with methods, data, and results) that urine kills bacteria and it only seemed to be positively correlated to urea concentration.

        So if you eat a lot of meat and don't drink much water, your urine would be an antiseptic. I'd imagine urine on the Arabian peninsula could get quite concentrated, so that fits.

        The "osmolality" part refers to saltiness (or dissolves stuff in general) and they say that doesn't help nor hurt and neither does ammonia.

        But if the urine has the urea which is converted to ammonia (cat pee smell) then it's not as useful.

        SOURCE: BST Chemistry Education, graduate studies in (oligopeptide) biochemistry

        ☮️❤️♾️

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Time to flush this

          Oooo, a scientific article from 55 years ago. I'm sure it's mythic!

          I can't find the recent article where a group worked on the question: if urine is naturally sterile, why are there so many UTIs and why are they repeating so much? As a first report swimming against the long stream of denials, they could only state that the myth of sterility seems very weak tea. That there is an urgent need for actual research to modern standards of evidence.

          Just like the myth that all those stomach ulcers were 'stress', long received medical truths turn out to be brass rather than gold upon reexamination. A different color indeed.

          Think about it. Saying that some part of the physical body - embedded in this world of bacteria / viruses / parasites - is somehow immune to adoption is highly unrealistic. Heck, Ebola was found in eyeballs months after infections, and even once in a doctor who had never been 'infected'.

          Oh, and among the findings in the report were that the threat to men is not as "long distance" as previously asserted. You may be holding a bomb that'll blow up later. Shake that off!

  6. Povl H. Pedersen

    Why was all recipients visible in the first place ?

    This would be illegal in civilized countries, and against OpSec in most countries.

    BCC exists for a reason, but I know that Microsoft is hiding it. But people sending out mass mails should be taught. Or as they do in the military, promoted to the level where he makes least possible damage.

    1. anothercynic Silver badge

      The recipients weren't visible in the first place. They used an Exchange distribution list, which dutifully sent the emails on to everyone else in the list. And, as you know, if you reply to an email from a mailing list (or distribution list) where the Reply-To is not configured correctly, eventually the To list grows and grows regardless of whether the distribution list is eventually locked down.

      And yes, it's possible (although this hasn't been mentioned whether this was the case) that someone used the option in Outlook to 'expand' the distribution list in Exchange to put the actual addresses into the To list (which is a cockup you can lay on Microsoft's doorstep).

      1. JimboSmith

        I had an odd one where I was incorrectly added to a distribution list at work. As I really didn’t need to know what the was going on in branch offices elsewhere I tried to leave the list. Easier said than done. The real owner of the list was hidden because the originating email address was something ike branchofficeupdate@thiscompany234.com. All the recipients were in the BCC field so I couldn’t ask anyone else getting the email if they knew. I called IT support who were sympathetic but it obviously was not their priority. I was asked if I’d tried emailing the address and asking them to remove me? I politely said I had and got an automated reply saying this mailbox is not read and your message has been deleted.

        Then over lunch in the canteen I saw someone I knew and owed me a favour from support. They said they’d look into it for me and duly came back a couple of hours later with good news. I was not on the list any more and they’d added the bloke with the same first name as me who was the intended recipient.

        1. PRR Silver badge

          TIL: "..if you put a bunch of soldiers or officers of the same rank in one room.., they will revert to acting like privates..." Tho from hanging near Professors I coulda guessed as much. (Lord of the Flies comes to mind too.)

          --------------------------

          JimboSmith> the bloke with the same first name as me who was the intended recipient.

          I learned that one somewhere along the line. If it is not for me, who else around here looks like me? Or in this case has a name of Jimbo or Smith?

          --------------------------

          I have NO idea why everybody here is going on about "BCC". It is not in the story. It is not needed to cause a mailstorm! The original email may have been:

          from: General Jimbo Smif

          to: FA57 Voluntary Transfer

          That is just two recipients. The mail client has NO way to know that FA57 is a list that expands to 13,000 persons. The client can put FA57 either in a TO: field or a CC: field.

          Yes, keys to use the ListServ should be tightly controlled. When I ran such for a school it was usually the teacher and the lead student. Being semi-awake, I had others diverted to me where I decided to pass them on or drop it.

          Ah, memory awakes. A month after I started my first LISTSERV some stranger discovered it and sent spam for chairs and couches. The list members were baffled and frightened. Locking listserv permissions was "D'oh!" Soothing the fears and ruffled feathers took longer.

      2. Persona Silver badge

        I have seen/caught someone who tried to send to a huge locked distribution list and when that failed try to expand the list. This also failed because of the high number of recipients. Their next step was to break it down into chunks small enough to send. We stopped her before the second send.

  7. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    So the military still hasn't learned to control Reply All

    It took decades, but finally Outlook allowed for controlling Reply All (I think it was in Office 2010).

    I remember clearly working in various major organizations in Luxembourg around 2010 and seeing, for the first time in my life, that Reply All prompted a message box along the lines of "Are you really sure you want to do this ?". Some messages were more of the "Only do this if you can justify it to your manager" type.

    So the military haven't cottoned on yet ?

    Oh well, give them another four or five decades, they'll get there eventually.

    1. Potemkine! Silver badge

      Re: So the military still hasn't learned to control Reply All

      The first mistake was not to use Bcc to send mails to 10,000+ recipients.

    2. Mayday
      Devil

      Do you really want to do this?

      Maybe they did get this warning, and pressed “ok” anyway. How many people do you know who press “ok” without reading what they’re actually ok-ing?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Do you really want to do this?

        "Authorize nuclear attack on Moscow (ok/cancel)"

        One HOPES they don't press "ok" without reading!

        1. cmdrklarg

          Re: Do you really want to do this?

          Well, one can hope in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first.

          Never mind that there are far too many that would read it and hit 'OK' just to see what happens!

        2. General Purpose

          Re: Do you really want to do this?

          Don't worry, the missiles aren't despatched until you've keyed in your email address twice.

          (This has worked astonishingly well so far.)

  8. John H Woods

    The bcc: field...

    ... should have solved this a long time ago. There is just no reason for for more than about a couple of dozen recipients to ever appear in the to: or cc: fields, and at least two reasons not to: 1) reply-all storms and 2) oversharing other recipients' email addresses.

    Surely it is not beyond the wit of [wo]man or Microsoft to enumerate the total count of recipients in the to: and cc: fields and just not send these problematic emails in the first place?

    And I don't mean "Are you sure? [OK] / [Cancel]" I mean "Too many recipients: your mail cannot be sent [OK] " or, preferably, "... the recipients have been converted to bcc: [OK]"

    1. Persona Silver badge

      Re: The bcc: field...

      Far from it being "beyond to wit" it is normal to set up corporate email so only certain people can send to the big internal distribution lists, for extra safety you may even permission the sender for just long enough to do the send. You don't need to BCC the list as the recipients can't reply to the list as they don't have permission, just the sender. You can also limit the number of recipients people can send directly to, though I don't believe distribution list count as multiple recipients in this context.

      Of course email administrators can cock up and remove the permissions on the distribution list .....

  9. chivo243 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Reply All Mail Bomb!

    I survived a couple of these... Worst was at a school, when listservs were the rage. Out of Office replies were becoming more common place. Summer vacation rolls around, and a couple of guys start a conversation on the same listserv, have their out of office enabled... First one guy complains, and the next school admin type guy replies all crying about the problem, adding all faculty to the message so they knew about the problem! BAM over 30,000 messages in my inbox alone! The mail admin at the time quickly found the tick box for one reply per out of office message.

  10. Capt. Jon Peters

    Graphics

    Please check the graphics on the title page. Those planes about the Army is Mig-29's.

  11. disgruntled yank

    Not just the military

    A few years ago, NetApp had a reply-all storm. I'm pretty sure The Register wrote it up.

    1. Total_Blackout

      Re: Not just the military

      We had one at a semiconductor company I worked for in the early 2000s. The email went around the world. One snarky guy in Ireland commented that it was "Mostly the stupid Americans replying". Well that wasn't remotely true, but in the end that guy ended up getting fired and I believe he ended up getting death threats over it. Just because in their infinite wisdom, the admins created an open mail list that went to everyone and it was just called "fab." Hours of company time was wasted because of one poorly named mail list.

  12. Dizzy Dwarf

    I feel most sorry for ...

    ... whoever hits reply-all and has requested read-receipts.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This yor folt

    My worst/best storm happened in Nokia. 100k+ people on the email list. I remember top reply-all messages such as "why did I receive this?" and "please remove me". But the best was "this yor folt!" . Obviously from someone who did not speak English as their first language.

    People were posting excel bar charts about the most popular responses. "This yor folt!" made it into t-shirts.

    I don't remember anyone getting punished for the storm, not even those who could not resist the urge to poke fun and reply-all to the thread. The lesson most likely was reply-all must be disabled for large email lists. Or even better, never make lists with thousands of people.

    1. theOtherJT Silver badge

      Re: This yor folt

      Oh no, that's definitely from someone who speaks English as their first language. Anyone who was actively taught it would have made a better attempt at it.

    2. Anonymous South African Coward Bronze badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: This yor folt

      I followed it down the rabbit hole.

      https://everwas.com/2014/01/this-yor-folt/

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like