Outlook Recall

[DaveB]

When I recall a message I would like it to be TOTALLY deleted on the
recipient's machine. As it is now, the clients machine has to be on and then
its dependent on several variables.

If I make a mistake, I'd rather not highlight it by sending an additional
message which is typically read after the message I'm trying to recall.

This is very confusing to most users as its very misleading.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...25800e7c0&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.general

 

[Roady [MVP]]

That is not up to Outlook but up to the mail server. As the sender you have
no access to the items of the receiver of the message, not even your own. It
would be a weird world if you were allowed to do that ;-)

 

[DaveB]

When I put something in an interoffice mail envelope and deposit it in our
outbound mail slot and then remember that I forgot something or made a
mistake I simply go and retreive it. I don't see that as "weird."

If you check the Wikipedia definition of "recall" - "Often, a recall email
will pique the recipient's curiosity as to what the sender was wishing to
recall, and will only draw more attention to the ill-advised email. Thus, it
is best reserved as a symbolic gesture that one wishes to take something back
if it were possible."

As I previosuly stated, its confusing to people. While you may claim that
they are poorly trained, I would claim that its misleading and poorly
designed. If you look at some competitiors email solutions "recall" means
"recall" not "draw attention to my earlier mistake."

I have not interest in receiving any further comments on this. If you
browse the web you'll see tons and tons of folks who agree with me.

 

[VanguardLH]

When I put something in an interoffice mail envelope and deposit it
in our

<snip - la la la la la - bunch of stabs at equating physical messaging
to electronic messaging>

No software will do every function that every user wants.

So do you actually use Exchange as the mail server?

Oh, I see from your original post that you made a suggestion. A
suggestion is NOT a question. Okay, suggest away. Come on back when
you have a question.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

Where did I claim that they were poorly trained?

I get your point that it will draw only more attention to the item but you
cannot get something that has been delivered already from the delivered
location without notifying the receiver. It's not in an "outbox slot" as in
your example, it's delivered already. You don't sneak into other people's
houses and get your postcard from their doormat either do you?

There is no mail client that does it differently as it is not up to the
client to begin with. Internal recalls can work differently if the internal
mail server supports it (and reflects your corporate policy). You can then
recall without attracting attention when the message hasn't been read yet.
Once it has been read you'll need permission of the receiver.

 

[DaveB]

Ok - my suggest is that if your're using an Exchange Server you can recall a
message - even if the client machine is turned off. This should take place
on the server.

I say again, many, many people have complained about this. If you look at
GroupWise a recall is a recall, not just an alert.

Been programming for more than 30 years now - programs should do what people
want, not the other way around.

 

[DaveB]

Cae in point - I sent an email at 7:30PM to an associate. A few minutes
later I realized that I wanted to add more information to the email. The
person I was sending to had long gone home and her machine was turned off,
therefore the email was still sitting on the Exhange Server.

This morning when she came in and powered up her machine I got the
unsucessful recall message.

I understand that you can't change history - once an email is read there's
not taking it back. But when its still undelivered I would like to be able
to recall it. This is the way some other email services (GroupWise) work.

As mentioned earlier, I'm asking for this to be considered, not for you to
come back and tell me why my opinion is wrong.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

Again, you're making assumptions about me and making factual wrong
statements taking it to a personal level instead of staying professional and
sticking to the issue. Never did I say anything about your opinion let alone
telling it was wrong.

You're factual wrong when saying when a computer is turned off the message
cannot be delivered. A mailbox resides on the server, not the client. A
client is only a method to access a mailbox. When you send a message and it
leaves your Outbox it arrives at the recipients mailbox (=delivered) within
seconds if not faster especially on an internal network.

Also again, the recalling is not handled by the mail client but by the mail
server. All you do from a client is sending a recall request to the server.
The way such a request is handled depends on the mail server. If you think
you've got a suggestion to handle this better you should make it to the
server product and not the client product.

 

[VanguardLH]

in message

Ok - my suggest is that if your're using an Exchange Server you can
recall a
message - even if the client machine is turned off. This should
take place
on the server.

Oh, and you want someone to control your mailbox? You don't want any
control over YOUR resources? What you want would be a joy to hackers
and malcontents. You are also assuming that the nastygram or poison
letter that you sent and now regret will not be recorded because you
recall it. Expect that NO E-MAIL delivered to an Exchange mailbox
will be hidden or deleted from the admins. Just because a message is
deleted doesn't mean that it doesn't still exist. Deleted just means
it has that *status*, not that it got physically purged. For security
reasons, it is likely that every message that is sent or received will
always be available to the admins, and to any manager that wants to
look at the history of e-mails in any of his/her employees.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HP052421841033.aspx?pid=CH062556091033

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA010917601033.aspx?pid=CH062556091033

 

[VanguardLH]

"Roady [MVP]" <newsgroups_DELETE_@_DELETE_sparnaaij_NO_._SPAM_net>
wrote in message

Again, you're making assumptions about me and making factual wrong
statements taking it to a personal level instead of staying
professional and sticking to the issue. Never did I say anything
about your opinion let alone telling it was wrong.

You're factual wrong when saying when a computer is turned off the
message cannot be delivered. A mailbox resides on the server, not
the client. A client is only a method to access a mailbox. When you
send a message and it leaves your Outbox it arrives at the
recipients mailbox (=delivered) within seconds if not faster
especially on an internal network.

Also again, the recalling is not handled by the mail client but by
the mail server. All you do from a client is sending a recall
request to the server. The way such a request is handled depends on
the mail server. If you think you've got a suggestion to handle this
better you should make it to the server product and not the client
product.

I'm not intimate with Exchange but I suspect you are slightly in
error. According to the articles that I've read regarding recall, the
recipient must be logged into their Exchange mailbox for the recall or
replacement to work. I suspect the recall or replace request is a
deferred object put in the recipient's mailbox. The OP wants to
control someone else's resource, namely the recipient's mailbox. That
would be tantamount to letting any hacker or malcontent run scripts in
e-mails to do anything they want with your message store in Outlook or
do anything else on your computer. Once an e-mail is away from a
sender's e-mail client, NOTHING of that e-mail is consuming only
resources for that sender and instead all those resources are someone
else's property or responsibility.

The OP says they wanted to send an updated message. Yet I've seen
plenty of times where the update forgot to include material in the
original message so the updated message is incomplete or in error and
both messages are required to get it all. The OP claims the
replacement message will be perfect but already admitted that the
first message was not perfect, so the replacement message may not be
perfect, either.

If the recipient sorts their Inbox in descending time order (so newest
messages are at the top of the list) then it is likely the recipient
will read and fire the recall message before reading the recalled
message. It might work, it might not. Recall has its limits. It
wasn't designed to be the equivalent of shaking an Etch-A-Sketch that
is stolen back before the recipient can read the message on it. The
recipient will know when there was a recall. Even if the recall were
successful, the recipient can still call the Exchange admin and ask
for a copy of the recalled message.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

Thanks Vanguard.

As far as I'm aware the recalling process has been slightly altered over the
years in when and if the original item gets deleted and to what point the
entire process is automated (read: requires interaction of the receiver).
However, note that you are still talking about Exchange which is a server
product which only represents an implementation method of all sorts of
recalling methods that you can come up with. For instance the logic behind
the recalling process is completely different when you have a different mail
server even though you are still using Outlook as the mail client. The
process again changes when multiple mail servers are into play.

I agree with you that the recalling process should be visible to the
recipient as you are basically "stealing" something back out of his/her
mailbox. That was also my remark in my initial reply that it would be a
crazy world otherwise; messages can leave my mailbox without me knowing. It
could happen within seconds after I have received it but also after years;
there is no way of telling if it is invisible to me.

As an additional side comment I think the OP sees the recalling function the
same as a replacement function (or at least a method to correct or update
information from the original email) which it is not. You are actually
taking something out of the property of somebody else. The whole "I send you
a new version" promise is optional and not a requirement as it is not part
of the recalling process.

If you actually want to control what can be done with the message (or at
least the access to it) after you have sent it you are entering the world of
DRM.