Microsoft Accidentally Breaks Replying To an Email On Outlook
8 70Microsoft has accidentally introduced a bug in Outlook for Mac that omits the original message from email replies, making it difficult for recipients to follow conversation history. Until Microsoft releases a fix, its suggested workaround is to roll back from version 16.110 and disable automatic updates, which is "great for users in full control of their devices -- not so good for anyone with a managed device," notes The Register. "Administrators with fleets of Macs running Outlook should brace for helpdesk tickets." From the report: In some instances, having a user copy and paste the salient bits of the email they are responding to might not be such a bad thing. We've all had emails that required epic amounts of scrolling to find what started the conversation, so forcing users to think about what they actually need to include is no bad thing. However, disrupting user workflows without warning -- well, that is undoubtedly a bad thing.
This is, after all, one of the most basic things an email client needs to do, so shipping a product with a bug that breaks this functionality says more about Microsoft's approach to quality than anything else.
8 comments
More importantly (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Valgrus Thunderaxe ( 8769977 ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @07:04PM (#66204942)
That's going to break a PGP reply chain and the subsequent messages will be made unreadable.
But I doubt it. (Score: 5, Insightful)
by msauve ( 701917 ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @07:18PM (#66204964)
Perhaps they were trying to get rid of their god-damned forced top-posting.
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: The lost context.
Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?
A: Yes.
Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm replying?
Re:But I doubt it. (Score: 5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward ( None ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @08:06PM (#66205010)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?
But I must explain to you how all this mistaken idea of denouncing pleasure and praising pain was born and I will give you a complete account of the system, and expound the actual teachings of the great explorer of the truth, the master-builder of human happiness. No one rejects, dislikes, or avoids pleasure itself, because it is pleasure, but because those who do not know how to pursue pleasure rationally encounter consequences that are extremely painful. Nor again is there anyone who loves or pursues or desires to obtain pain of itself, because it is pain, but because occasionally circumstances occur in which toil and pain can procure him some great pleasure.
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Why should I skip past boilerplate and old information to get to the important part?
Re:But I doubt it. (Score: 5, Insightful)
by rta ( 559125 ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @08:44PM (#66205036)
Perhaps they were trying to get rid of their god-damned forced top-posting.
Think of it as a reply with the previous conversation as an "FYI" attachment if you need to review context.
In practice it works well, imo.
In most simple cases you already know the context so don't need it. And if you do you can look down.
And if you get forwarded an email or added to a convo mid thread, it's good to be able to first see the latest message to get some idea why you got the thing or what the request is, and then you can dive into the bg below. And yes in many of these cases i will scroll all the way down and read "up" which is not ideal but it's fine since it's relatively rare compared to the other usecase.
Re:But I doubt it. (Score: 5, Funny)
by JimWise ( 1804930 ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @09:36PM (#66205080)
T > Perhaps they were trying to get rid of their god-damned forced top-posting.
h >
i > A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
s > Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
>
i > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
s > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>
w > A: The lost context.
h > Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?
y >
> A: Yes.
I > Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm replying?
> --
s > "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
i
d
e
-
p
o
s
t
Pretty weird use case! (Score: 5, Funny)
by BenBoy ( 615230 ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @08:55PM (#66205044)
It's a pretty weird use case in an email client, replying to a message. Small wonder it was apparently left off of their automated regression suite, ja?
Or (Score: 5, Informative)
by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Monday June 22, 2026 @08:59PM (#66205048)
workaround is to roll back from version 16.110
or just install Thunderbird.
Magic 8-ball says (Score: 5, Funny)
by Bu11etmagnet ( 1071376 ) on Tuesday June 23, 2026 @01:53AM (#66205204)
Magic 8-ball says: Outlook not so good.