Talk:Email storm

Lacks nuance

This article lacks any sort of nuanced discussion of the role the particular operating systems and mail daemons used on these networks played in creating their susceptibility to this sort of problem. Have there been cases where this happened in a non-Exchange shop? If not, why not? Are these problems present in all mbox/maildir UNIX mail servers as well? Are there mail servers that side step the issue entirely by simply storing one copy of the message when it's sent to ~5000 recipients that use a common mailstore ala a Notes database? Give us something beyond just press reports, if you've got it. MrZaius^talk 15:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks scale

The massive events described here are one category of email storms; there are others. The more common, everyday email storm involves a much smaller group of people replying to an email, adding new people as the replies build. These 'conversation storms' don't bring down servers, but they do bring down conversations and contribute to information overload.

I suggest restructuring this article to define different classes of email storm, based on scope and impact. JulianSammy (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead if you can back it up, but the only sources I'm familiar with focus on the larger ones. MrZaius^talk 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail storm → Email storm – This page was originally titled "Email storm"; however, it was moved to "E-mail storm" in 2008 for consistency with "E-mail". Modern usage tends to favor the spelling "email" over "e-mail" when describing electronic mail services, so I think it should be moved back. The article on Email uses the non-hyphenated spelling in the title as well. Augurar (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Common practice is not to hyphenate email, as can be seen by the title of the Email article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Imperial e-mail storm

Who keeps deleting the 11th of March Imperial e-mail storm and why?Holy triple m (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of edits were actually common vandalism, resulting in an indistinguishable mess and the protection of the article. Anyway, see our core policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability (which doesn't include Twitter). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Email storm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090201072613/http://boston.com:80/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/11/reply_all_e_mail_storm_hits_state_department/ to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/11/reply_all_e_mail_storm_hits_state_department

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]