When you have multiple accounts in your profile Outlook sometimes has a problem recognizing who 'you' are and includes all email addresses in a Reply to All. Beginning with Outlook 2003, Outlook handles it better and as long as your address on the message is the one used as the From address for the account, it will be removed when you choose Reply to All. To automatically remove your address when replying to all, use one of the Tools listed below. You can also use VBA. See for a code sample by Outlook Developer MVP Michael Bauer. Outlook 2013: Reply to All includes myself I'm seeing too many Outlook 2013 users complain that 'reply to all' includes their own address.
While this was a common problem years ago, Outlook now does a good job identifying 'who you are'. It should only include yourself in the reply to all if the address the message was sent to is not the same as the account address. If your From address is the same as the address the message was sent to, Outlook can properly identify your address and will not include it in a 'reply to all'. When Outlook is confused, the possible causes include:. The Reply to address in File Account Settings More Settings is not the same as your account email address. When people reply to your address, Outlook sees that address as belonging to someone else. Outlook is using the x500 address, not the SMTP address (Exchange mailboxes only).
You have one or more contacts in Outlook for your own GAL entry and one contains the wrong address. Outlook is resolving to the copy in your Contacts, not the GAL. (Exchange mailboxes only) In each of these situations, the From address is different than the account address so Outlook included it in the Reply to all. Note on item 3: While it seems odd that Outlook 2013 is resolving reply addresses to contacts when it has the address already, it's my experience that Outlook 2013 resolves to display names, even when it has an email address to compare. I recently attempted to of first names and contacts (in firstname [email protected] format, one person per row).
Dec 19, 2018 after that, sent items folder showed up in the inbox folder. My outlook for mac version is 15.14 (150911). Unlike the default sent items, the moved sent. By Faithe Wempen. Mail box bloat. Everyone gets it over time. Your Outlook 2016 Inbox fills up with messages that you neglected to delete or file away, and before you know it you’ve got thousands of messages, taking up space in your data file and preventing you from browsing the new stuff easily.
When I pasted the list into the Members field, Outlook 2013 consistently resolved contacts to other people with the same first name. I had to use email addresses only to insure the Contact Group was correct. Always Include Yourself in Replies If you are used to this 'feature' from older versions of Outlook and want to include yourself in replies sent using Outlook 2003 and up, you'll need to create an after sending rule to CC yourself.
If you want to BCC yourself, you'll need to use VBA or an add-in listed at. To create a rule in Outlook 2007 and older:. From the Tools menu choose Rules and Alerts.
Select Create from a blank rule and choose Check after sending. Select conditions if you only want to be CC'd on certain messages or click Next to CC yourself on every message you send. Under Actions, locate the CC action and enter your email address. In Outlook 2010, open Manage Rules and Alerts (Home ribbon, Rules command), click New and create a rule that applies to messages you send.
Tools janusSEAL for Outlook's SafeDomain Extension provides users with a security policy safety net when sending messages from Microsoft Outlook. Warn when sending sensitive messages to a large number of recipients; Prevent users from sending sensitive messages to a large number of recipients; Remove recipients from sensitive messages; Correct email addresses when the sender accidentally uses a recipient's public email address for a sensitive message when they should have used their private network address. Outlook add-in to allow you to read the plain text version, HTML source, Internet headers, and attachment information, of any incoming message, all from one tabbed interface. Also includes ability to reply and forward HTML messages as plain text, and a 'Reply to Some' feature to generate a reply to selected recipients (fewer than 'Reply to All'). Free for personal use.
Works with Outlook 2000 through Outlook 2010 (32-bit only) and any version of Windows (32- or 64-bit). New release features full ribbon integration with Outlook 2010. ReplyAll is a free tool that alerts you when you hit the 'Reply To All' button in Outlook and asks if you really want to send to all. Works with all versions of Outlook: 2000 - 2013. SafeSend Outlook detects external recipients in outgoing emails and meeting invitations, requests users to confirm external emails recipients, expands Outlook distribution lists.
Supports multiple domains within corporate structure and multiple email accounts per user. Allows custom safe-domains. Puts minimum load on your Exchange server. TuneReplyAll is a free utility that adds a number of useful features to Microsoft Outlook 2010: It can show a warning message when a user is going to reply to everyone. The user has to confirm his choice to reply to all. This will help to prevent sending out confidential information. If Outlook includes the user's own address in Replay all, TuneReplyAll can remove it from the message.
Alternately, if the user wants to include his address in the To, CC, or BCC address field in new, replied or forwarded messages, TuneReplyAll will add it. Have a very weird problem in this area. All of a sudden today, I accidentaly stumbled across an issue. If I hit 'Reply All', on an email from any of the accounts in my Outlook 2013, my email address for a company I haven't worked for in over a year populates in BCC. How is this possible? This old email address is not in any address book, or anything on my computer. My previous employer is completely a guy who would spy if he could, hope this is not some sort of virus he was somehow able to put in my computer.
Hopefully just being paranoid, but can't figure out how to get Outlook to stop putting this old email address in BCC. Hope if only applies to 'Reply All', but only see it there. Please advise, thanks so much, genuinely appreciate the help.
(Photo: Jon Gosier) E-mail has been around long enough for most of us to fall in love and hate and love with it at least a few times. Problems arise and are quashed, or dealt with. Innovations come along; customs evolve. But one grisly bad habit won’t go away: the “reply-all” dilemma. You know what I’m talking about. Someone sends you a group e-mail.
Maybe it’s your company’s marketing boss, or the head of your bowling league, or the parent-teacher liaison in your kid’s school. And even if that e-mail was meant to be simply explanatory, or to garner responses only to the sender, inevitably a few of the people on the receiving end simply hit “reply all” and suddenly your in-box starts to fill up with a chattering storm of crap.
Sure, you could mark all those senders as spam but then you might miss something important later. Sure, you could politely tell people not to use “reply-all” when it’s unnecessary but plainly they don’t think it’s unnecessary, and you’ll come off sounding like a jerk. Sure, you could just deal with it and chalk it up to a downside of a great invention. But does anyone have any better ideas? 'Reply All' is an extremely useful (and sometimes necessary) feature.
So it doesn't make sense to completely do away with the feature. That being said, how and when the feature is used depends solely upon the sender and there is nothing to do apart from depending upon his/her judgement. Unfortunately, some people are stupid enough (in other words, deliberately ignorant) to understand the difference between 'Reply' and 'Reply All'. On a similar note, some people are still ignorant about difference between 'To', 'CC' and 'BCC'.
There is nothing to do except make them aware of it and explaining what a nuisance this reply all can be at times. In my experience, many, if not most, Reply All emails to large lists are misfires. Gmail is already smart enough to ask if you forgot an attachment if it sees 'attached' in the message, it could prompt for confirmation if Reply All is used on an email with more than a preset number of recipients.
(One problem: distribution lists, like 'Marketing & Sales,' that look like one address but actually go to 100 people. Easy enough to control in a corporate environment by using a list naming convention that would trigger the confirmation step.) There's a flip side to the problem - failure to hit Reply All. When a small group is discussing a problem by email, it's easy to hit just Reply by accident and leave out the rest of the group. This usually triggers another email saying, 'Ooops, sorry, forgot to include everyone.' If you're using Outlook, you can set up a rule which will automatically delete all of emails from that thread based on the specific subject heading.
This is only ideal if it's a unique subject heading, otherwise it will delete any following emails with the same subject heading which aren't related to the 'reply all dilemma'. In MS Outlook, right click on an email from the group email, then select 'RulesCreate rule.' Tick the 'subject contains' dialogue box and then tick the box that says 'Move the item to the folder' and select the 'Deleted Items' folder. Then click OK to finish.
Let's assume we're all reasonably aware e-mail users (first wrong assumption). The sender can avoid crap storms by bcc'ing.
Putting the list in the 'to' or 'cc' field instead implies that (s)he thinks there may be replies worth sharing. As to the recipient who thinks (s)he has a reply worth sending to all, (s)he has to make the conscious decision of choosing 'reply to all', which is not the first choice (reply is). I think the crap storm prevention tools are all there. Since whatever you say you will be judged anyway, why not explain these basic principles in an e-mail addressed to the first 'reply-all'er' and the sender, for future reference? They may be more inclined to consider what you're saying if you don't embarrass them by replying to all yourself. I'm a lawyer representing governmental entities in Oklahoma and this problem is of particular relevance and more of an annoyance in that setting because a blast email sent to the membership of a governing body can become a State law violation (Open Meeting Act) if someone on the body hits 'reply all' and sends a communication to the rest of their members. The way I solve that problem is to BCC people on the blast emails - it protects them from themselves.
If they hit Reply All, it won't go to the rest of the body and will only go to me. If replies are expected and intended to go to more than just myself, I'll put the relevant parties to receive replies in the TO or CC line - so if they hit 'Reply All' it will go to those parties and myself only. If it is important that there be an indication to the recipients as to who the email is being sent to, I will put in the body of the email who I am sending it to. But the BCC feature cuts off the 'Reply All' concern. But it can only be effective if the Sender uses it. It's an interesting problem.
I try to reply only to the sender, whenever I can. Or I immediately begin to narrow down the group. Who of the larger group really needs to know my response? If the groups is any larger than, say, 5 or 6, I will rarely respond all, unless it's necessary.
Sometimes, if you get the jump on this first, or early, you can avoid a lot of extra mail in your inbox. If you can sidebar a chosen few early, even better.
'Betty: you, Erin and Jennifer can meet with me about this to get details on (specific task).' You occasionally risk 'exclusion' because you can't know for sure who wants to be kept in the loop. But that doesn't happen very often. Most people are glad to be looped out if they can.
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |