US Army officer reply-all E-mail chain causes pandemonium

I can't think of the last time I used Reply over Reply All at work. If someone sends out a blast email that should not be replied all to; and doesn't put the group in BCC, that's on them.

It's still useful. Some friends and I send group email (each person listed on the To: line) to manage our D&D game, but since it's only about eight recipients, it never gets out of hand and we're kept up to date with who can make the game and who can't.

What seemed to happen in the article is an email sent to a group-id (single email address that the server expands), not a list of a thousand-plus individual email addresses. To the client, a group email address is just an address---there's no indication that it will go to a few thousand people.

Isn’t reply all a client side function? It just fills in the to and cc fields for the user rather than having the user manually enter all the email addresses?

I use reply all far more often than reply

When my family is planning a get-together we reply-all, or things go bad very quickly.