We give each staff member their own folder inside the general account.
Messages are manually moved (by right-clicking on the message, or by clicking and dragging) to the relevant staff member’s folder, or copied to multiple folders if more than one staff member needs to be made aware.
Staff should delete their messages once read, or ‘flag’ the message if they want to keep it.
We’ve only started using this recently, but it seems to be working quite well.
My work gave me (and the other 8000) an email address. We use it. No data loss. Why is this such an issue here?
Cost. The ACO would need over 10,000 accounts, and a larger team than 1 to admin it. The turn-over off staff and the transient quality of some would require quite a bit of admin managing.
Cost. The ACO would need over 10,000 accounts, and a larger team than 1 to admin it. The turn-over off staff and the transient quality of some would require quite a bit of admin managing.[/quote]
All of our temp office staff at work get an email account and it’s not much more transient than that at times. Actually the creation of accounts could be done via CIN and based on their name with a number if there is more than one.
The mention of cost is interesting, the Corps’ whole IT and electronic working experiment has been based on champagne lifestyle - value lemonade budget. The fact it works at all is a small miracle and has been solely due to “the coalface” investing heavily in hardware and software.
Cost. The ACO would need over 10,000 accounts, and a larger team than 1 to admin it. The turn-over off staff and the transient quality of some would require quite a bit of admin managing.[/quote]
All of our temp office staff at work get an email account and it’s not much more transient than that at times. Actually the creation of accounts could be done via CIN and based on their name with a number if there is more than one.
The mention of cost is interesting, the Corps’ whole IT and electronic working experiment has been based on champagne lifestyle - value lemonade budget. The fact it works at all is a small miracle and has been solely due to “the coalface” investing heavily in hardware and software.[/quote]
We’ve been here before and you don’t grasp the issue each time.
Move the thread along please.
I feel that rather than chuck out the cost line and use it as a closing statement, join in and recognise that we live in a ‘IT’ world and that we at coalface have got a generally raw deal.
I would suggest we all know that cost is the barrier that we are/will be told this each and everytime, which sort of dodges the issue that HQAC have had to rely very, very heavily on the volunteer community, who have had to acceed to HQAC’s demand/imposition that we do everything online. For God’s sake you have people who want to access Bader emails via their own phones, which is again an investment that HQAC have been able to avoid. It’s rumoured we’re all getting smartphones or tablets at work as the company don’t expect us to use our own phones for work, but we reckon this has more to do with the predominance of ‘hotdesking’ and is cheaper than laptops. Yet HQAC aren’t willing/able to deliver what a very large number of us see in our workplaces, such as a personal email for each and every member of staff.
This is where having someone a professional at Cranwell chasing sponsorship/corporate deals for things would mean the tired old arguments about cost would be laid to rest. As a squadron we work with people in the essentially voluntary sector who secure amazing deals for the organisations that employ them.
Of course you’re more than welcome to say I don’t grasp the issue.
You don’t grap the issue. You can access your bader emails from your phone.
I think GHE2’s issue is that we don’t all have individual emails and aren’t provided phones to access email as in a business environment.
However, is there a need for additional corps email addresses? And its not a requirement to access email on a mobile device and as such is an option so shouldn’t be provided, but is available to those that want it.
Nope, I can’t access MY bader emails on my phone. I can access the general squadron account on it, but thats not MY email.
GHE2 is making the point that there should be more email addresses available. Why has the training officer been singled out as needing one? Why not the AT officer? The shooting officer? The CP officer? The Comms officer?
Why not go the whole hogg and integrate the account creation with whatever personnel system they use, so that when someone is added to the system, an email account is generated automatically, and deleted when that person is marked as leaving - it works in industry everywhere else.
Still have the squadron account as a bucket for general things, but give everyone a smaller account - 20mb say - for them to do whatever is needed.
It would make far more sense, especially if they were linked to roles such as Shooting, AT etc, as that way, information could be cascaded far quicker to squadrons, and reduce the need for regions even more - use the cost savings from there to increase the server capacity 
Nope, I can’t access MY bader emails on my phone. I can access the general squadron account on it, but thats not MY email.
[/quote]
You should be able to get any ACO email account on a smart phone using active sync, speak with your Bader POC or follow the guide on sharepoint.
Nope, I can’t access MY bader emails on my phone. I can access the general squadron account on it, but thats not MY email.
[/quote]
You should be able to get any ACO email account on a smart phone using active sync, speak with your Bader POC or follow the guide on sharepoint.[/quote]
His point was that it isn’t “his” email account, despite the fact that it actually is, albeit a shared one; just as “his” house may also be shared by other people. 
Nope, I can’t access MY bader emails on my phone. I can access the general squadron account on it, but thats not MY email.
[/quote]
You should be able to get any ACO email account on a smart phone using active sync, speak with your Bader POC or follow the guide on sharepoint.[/quote]
His point was that it isn’t “his” email account, despite the fact that it actually is, albeit a shared one; just as “his” house may also be shared by other people. :D[/quote]
I feel stupid :ohmy: :ohmy:
Don’t mention what happens in the workplace that we experience everyday … someone’s sure to take you to task.
Frankly I spend more time deleting emails from my Bader account, so I want more space if anything. Email trails have been my friend at work and in the ATC.
Don’t mention what happens in the workplace that we experience everyday … someone’s sure to take you to task.
Frankly I spend more time deleting emails from my Bader account, so I want more space if anything. Email trails have been my friend at work and in the ATC.[/quote]
Having everything general coming into a shared mailbox gives you (potential) capacity, some level of transparency regarding general communications and a fighting chance that issues can be dealt with regardless of the absence of any individual. Those are the key reasons I like the common account. I’d want to ensure that everything sent from the shared mailbox was tagged with a personal signature but otherwise ended up saved in the shared “sent” folder and was tagged with the shared reply-to address.
Having personal accounts used to access that shared folder gives us a better audit trace, easier signatures, the chance to direct more confidential matters and could get rid of many second-level SMS accounts.
I have to agree. I was resistant to the “adj.xxx” accounts purely on the basis that I have shadmin - but also the transparency issue. Much better just have the two accounts… I hope that “training.xxx” is not introduced down here. I fear it will bring about the “briefcase” mentality which Bader was so good at unlocking and doing away with!
If that’s doable, awesome.
At one point, when a member of staff submitted an activity on SMS I got an email from John.smith@aircadets.org telling me he’d submitted it.
It changed back quite quickly though 
While a shared account does aid transparency in terms of information available to all, a read tag doesn’t identify who has actually looked at it.
Also a sent mail is potentially anonymous, a named or attributed account doesn’t allow this.
Has anyone got the details of how to set up my bader account on Outlook?
Hey folks!
I’m having a few issues hooking up my Outlook Account to the Bader Servers.
I’ve looked at the Document and followed it to the T. It just refuses to accept anything that’s being put in!
Did the actual question of how to link the web app to an actual Outlook account ever get answered?
I’ve tried following the ‘link’ but that’s Office generic and doesn’t work.
Outlook does recognise and auto fill some details for me, and althoguh it says everyhting is working 100%, I can’t actually receive any email.
For some reason it insists my email address is adj@2376.acolocal and when I correct it, outlook stalls.
Any ideas?