My mom works at a place where they handle their email system internally. They don’t use any sort of cloud-hosted email. They have their own domain and have @company.com email addresses, and the email servers are set up locally at the brick-and-mortar business.
She just gets hammered with spam, and has for years.
Something like a 100 spam messages a day. I’m sure some of it is junk-not-spam mail that she could slowly fight. But plenty is honest-to-god spam. And so she deals with it by hand every day. Making very sure she isn’t missing or accidentally deleting customer emails, as she is in sales and email is a huge part of her job.
I try not to think about it much as there isn’t anything I can do and it doesn’t seem to severely hurt her ability to do her job anyway. I think it’s just the idea of grunt work that bothers me. Hand deleting spam is grunt work, and computers should be doing all grunt work for us.
It also just surprises me because in the small-tech-business world I live in, you never see this kind of thing. You see people use G Suite, which is entirely hosted online, easy to admin, gives you email, calendar, storage and a bunch of apps, for 5 bucks a person. Or Microsoft Exchange which starts at just 4 bucks, or 12.50 if you want all the apps.
It’s not just the price of those that seems like such an obvious win, but the quality. Your employees won’t be hand deleting spam.
Despite the power and intelligence available to companies like Microsoft and Google, we still have five instances of our image-laden signature staring back at us when we reply to an email conversation.
Why oh why can’t they detect a duplicate and snip it off? We only need it once!
I’m with Steven on this one.
I like having a signature, as it gives me some kind of warm-fuzzy feeling that every bit of email I write does a tiny bit of marketing for me. Mine is a simple reminder of the big projects I work on. But it makes me an offender of signature-creep:
Seems like the kind of thing huge tech companies can solve. For the most part, I never see that stuff, thanks to the […] menu I get in Inbox.
But still, I see it often enough it’s silly and obnoxious. Particularly when the signature is massive. Like this kind of thing:
That would be a cool paid feature for an email client:
Email filters seem like a bit of a power-user feature. These are things like “if an email is from this address and contains this text, apply this label and automatically archive it.” It’s pretty cool that we can do that, and I’d wager most clients support some version of that.
I recently saw this:
That sounds like it saves Julia a lot of grief, which is great. It makes me think though… wouldn’t
cutting those emails off at the source be better? Hm. Maybe, maybe not. It boils down to if it’s useful to have those emails in the archive or not. Perhaps it’s useful to be able to search for a person and see when you had meetings with them in the past (or future, I suppose). If that’s not ever
useful, then I’d see about getting the calendar you use to stop sending those emails. After all, you wouldn’t fight junk email by setting up a million filters, you unsubscribe from them.
So I suppose… only filter if:
You have no control over the source of the email, and need to exert some control after it arrives.
You don’t mind getting the email, but you don’t need to see it. It’s useful in search.
You like doing fancy workflow things, like automatic labeling or prioritization.
If you’re using filtering to trash stuff, try to cut it off at the head instead.
Hey Chris, just shooting you a text here to let you know I emailed you about that stuff we talk about on the phone.
It just doesn’t feel right, does it? I’ll admit, sometimes I don’t mind. Like if it’s a real estate agent whom I’ve told I want to be kept very up to date on everything going on. But usually, it’s pretty far up the obnoxious scale.
I don’t want a Direct Message (DM) on Twitter about the email you sent me. I don’t want a phone call about that same email. I don’t need a email about your phone call. I don’t need a Slack message about your text or for you to stop by in person about your phone call.
All these are crossing the communication-type chasm and feel like a violation of trust. We’ve already communicated in one way. There is already proof that I use that communication type. I’m an adult person who has already communicated with you and if there is some breakdown there, there is a reason for it that can’t be solved by jumping chasms.
The primary reason is that my trust in you drops a ton the second you do it. You don’t come across as a go-getter, you come across as needy and desperate, and that’s not a good look on anybody.
You know how I pick which communications of any type I respond to first? Whatever ones I feel like. The ones I think have the most potential and feel good. Make me feel good, not chased.
Of course not. There are people like Daniel Jacobs out there:
You don’t deserve my time, Daniel Jacobs. You demonstrated no understanding of me or the site you are asking about. That’s a terrible way to reach out to someone. I’m quite sure you are a real person and this tactic gets you enough leads or whatever that you’re doing just fine.
But I’m not going to talk to you Daniel Jacobs. I know just by the smell of this email you are not a good person for me to work with.