"Please confirm these are the recipients of this e-mail"

[Newell Steamer]

I am at work. I am forwarding a work e-mail to work e-mail addresses. I add the folks who need to read it. When I hit send, I then get a pop-up:
"Please confirm these are the recipients of this e-mail"

I then have to check off the e-mail address, or 'select all' for e-mail addresses. And click OK, before the e-mail can be sent off.

Would I be overreacting if I consider this to be the dumbest thing, of all things (related / not related), of all time for ever and ever?

Please, someone tell me I am raging like a moron for no reason and this is perfectly OK. That your place of employment does this and this is what other companies do.

Some background information & what/why I think is happening:
The execs at my company are notorious for replying all with content that some people should not be seeing. They also forward e-mails to all sorts of inappropriate recipients (internal and external). Some have gotten fired. Some have been warned. Some have had their reply all / forwarded e-mail used as court evidence (harassment, leaks, fraud, etc.).

The point: my company's leadership "culture" is quite challenged in compartmentalizing information. So, a few days ago, we get an e-training course (which are usually ordered by the company's board, especially when the latest scandal(s) hits; sexual harassment lawsuit results in e-training course on sexual harassment) that we need to be vigilant on how and who we send e-mails to.

And today, we got what was described above.

Is it me? Is what I described up top done anywhere else?

 

[kranky]

Using Outlook? We use Outlook 2007 and don't have that pop-up. I would also rage, since the implication is "people are careless the first time they add recipients but will be very careful if we ask them to check twice."

 

[Newell Steamer]

Using Outlook? We use Outlook 2007 and don't have that pop-up. I would also rage, since the implication is "people are careless the first time they add recipients but will be very careful if we ask them to check twice."

Correct - Outlook.

 

[notposting]

User: Click on file "critical_work.doc"
User: Hits "delete"
Computer: Are you sure you want to permanently delete "critical_work.doc"?
User: Yes, damnit! *clicks furiously*
Computer: File "critical_work.doc" is deleted.
User: Oh crap

Edit: to echo what kranky said - it's just piss poor design but at least this way Legal/HR etc can now really really really nail someone's ass to the wall. "You had to reverify your email recipients!"

 

[Markbnj]

Clearly trying to prevent the whole accidental disclosure and embarrassment thing.

 

[purbeast0]

the problem with designs like that, is that after the 2nd time you do it, you aren't even going to verify anything and are going to just click the button because you are on autopilot.

 

[DrPizza]

the problem with designs like that, is that after the 2nd time you do it, you aren't even going to verify anything and are going to just click the button because you are on autopilot.

Pretty much this. Seems like a passive aggressive way to deal with a problem, rather than send a manager to talk to an employee who abuses "reply all." It would be nice if managers also smacked employees upside the head with a wet trout for not using BCC when they do have a long list of recipients who would have zero reason to "reply all." E.g., yesterday, I received an email that was addressed to science teachers. A lot of science teachers. If I printed the header, it alone would be 7 or 8 pages.

 

[TheGardener]

I wonder when your employer is going monitor your internet usage. Based on all your posting, I'd say you are hardly working.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I wonder when your employer is going monitor your internet usage. Based on all your posting, I'd say you are hardly working.

Or, I am good at what I do.

 

[TheGardener]

Or, I am good at what I do.

Yes you are... at trolling discussion boards. LOL!

 

[randay]

you work for a bunch of idiots, which is not unheard of, but i believe you are quite alone on the are you sure you are sure outlook dialogs.

 

[Markbnj]

the problem with designs like that, is that after the 2nd time you do it, you aren't even going to verify anything and are going to just click the button because you are on autopilot.

Absolutely. Ultimately the only thing that can save humans from being human is automation.

 

[glenn1]

User: Click on file "critical_work.doc"
User: Hits "delete"
Computer: Are you sure you want to permanently delete "critical_work.doc"?
User: Yes, damnit! *clicks furiously*
Computer: File "critical_work.doc" is deleted.
User: Oh crap

Edit: to echo what kranky said - it's just piss poor design but at least this way Legal/HR etc can now really really really nail someone's ass to the wall. "You had to reverify your email recipients!"

That's what workflow and straight-through-processing is for, so that users don't need to do the oh-so-value-creating step of forwarding an email and probably screwing up in the process creating further non-value add rework steps.

 

[purbeast0]

Absolutely. Ultimately the only thing that can save humans from being human is automation.

it's just a sign of laziness all around. instead of fixing the problem, they put a stupid nuance the gets in everybodies way that doesn't actually fix anything other than now they have a way to cover their asses.

i've had to implement many thins like this and the sole reason for it is CYA and nothing more.

 

[nakedfrog]

Ah, I've implemented many features like this. Unsurprisingly, it never seems to fix the problem.

 

[Lonyo]

We have a similar system but it's actually not that bad, and it's configurable (I know because I was in the test group and provided feedback similar to some of the comments above and the presentation was amended).

Ours ONLY pops up when you are sending to external email addresses, which is fine because it means you can pretty much ignore it if you want to send externally, and it then lists the external addresses and just lets you yes/no it.

It's a simple protective measure to make sure when you email externally you are sure you wanted to, for extra piece of mind, and it's not too intrusive. Most people might still auto-click yes, but it's for those times when you get a chance to reconsider.

It was also only brought in this year.

 

[rcpratt]

That is truly obnoxious.

But I do hate reply all morons.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

We have a similar system but it's actually not that bad, and it's configurable (I know because I was in the test group and provided feedback similar to some of the comments above and the presentation was amended).

Ours ONLY pops up when you are sending to external email addresses, which is fine because it means you can pretty much ignore it if you want to send externally, and it then lists the external addresses and just lets you yes/no it.

It's a simple protective measure to make sure when you email externally you are sure you wanted to, for extra piece of mind, and it's not too intrusive. Most people might still auto-click yes, but it's for those times when you get a chance to reconsider.

It was also only brought in this year.

We have a spell-check feature that always spell checks before sending.

Inevitably, someone will have mispelled something in the chain of emails - or made a grammar mistake. So I have to hit ignore, X it out, or make a correction. I can't deny, it's probably saved me once or twice. Overall not too annoying.

 

[ultimatebob]

User: Click on file "critical_work.doc"
User: Hits "delete"
Computer: Are you sure you want to permanently delete "critical_work.doc"?
User: Yes, damnit! *clicks furiously*
Computer: File "critical_work.doc" is deleted.
User: Oh crap

Edit: to echo what kranky said - it's just piss poor design but at least this way Legal/HR etc can now really really really nail someone's ass to the wall. "You had to reverify your email recipients!"

Of course, this will just cause upper management to "pull a Hillary" and use their personal e-mail accounts and devices for business use.

They will keep screwing up, and the little people will pay price for it.

 

[randay]

Ah, I've implemented many features like this. Unsurprisingly, it never seems to fix the problem.

have you ever implemented such a feature but reversed the question? ie: are you sure you do not want to? (y) (n)

this causes no action to be taken if the user does not actually read the dialog. or possibly action to be taken if the user does not actually read the dialog. either way its hilarious. or infuriating. depends which side of it you are on.