You Can't Do It That Way

[Jay 2K Winger]

This is actually from my Coworker L, as she's been working a reorg/rename request for this woman that I'll just go ahead and call Karen. For reasons.

I'm simplifying greatly the situation, partly for obfuscation purposes.

As part of this request, there's a group mailbox that needs renaming or some such. But the problem is that Karen wants to add users individually to this mailbox.

The Client's IT policy won't allow this. Mailbox membership is solely with groups, i.e. you add the group to the mailbox membership, not the individual users. You can add the individual users to the group, and as members of that group, they will have access to the mailbox.

Karen wants to add the users individually. She insists on this. CW L has repeatedly, and patiently, explained she cannot do this. Karen insists.

So, to humor her, CW L reached out to the [Email Team] about this issue. Spoke with [Email Team Member], who confirmed that CW L is correct, even explained in an email to Karen that she cannot add the individual users.

Karen now will not talk to either of them, "until she hears from a tech!" As if CW L and ETM aren't both techs.

It's like, "Yes, Karen, we'll bypass all of The Client's deliberate and specific policies to let you break the rules, because surely that won't blow back on us in any possible capacity."



Fake Edit: Just heard CW L comment, "Oh, and she's deleted my email..." because of course she did.

[RealUnimportant]

le sigh. I presume deleting the evidence that she's been told "no" already means she can escalate it as if she's not been told, in her tiny mind as least

[Seanette]

Too bad for her that deleting from her inbox does not delete all copies of a message. She's reminding me of a cat trying to cover up an oops in the middle of a hard floor with nothing to put over it.

[Jay 2K Winger]

Follow up time.

Someone higher up in ETM's office repeated the same denial to Karen, who has now accepted she won't be getting her way.

Damn. And I'd been hoping she'd keep pushing further and further up the chain of command until the Lord High Muckety-Muck of All Muckety-Mucks shut her down. </s>

[Ironclad Alibi]

The Client's IT policy won't allow this. Mailbox membership is solely with groups, i.e. you add the group to the mailbox membership, not the individual users. You can add the individual users to the group, and as members of that group, they will have access to the mailbox.

Did it not occur to her to make a group of one member then add that group to the mailbox? Or does a group require more than one member?

[Nunavut Pants]

Did it not occur to her to make a group of one member then add that group to the mailbox?

PLEASE do not put ideas into the heads of idiots like that!!!

[RealUnimportant]

Did it not occur to her to make a group of one member then add that group to the mailbox? Or does a group require more than one member?

That would require 1: logical skewed thinking, as opposed to merely skewed, 2: adding people to groups which is obviously something karen doesn't want to do (and perhaps doesn't know how to do, or at least has convinced herself of this), and 3: more permissions than she may have, as I suspect that she may not have been entrusted with group creation powers - and would we really be surprised if this were so?

[Jay 2K Winger]

Did it not occur to her to make a group of one member then add that group to the mailbox? Or does a group require more than one member?

You are ascribing more intelligence than the average end user has, even at my job, which does not deal with the general public.

FWIW, there are plenty of examples at The Client where there are one-member groups, specifically because some things are specifically set up to only allow groups to be added as members, not individual users. The way things are arranged is deliberate, and is the standard that my office works to maintain.