Topic: New policy for DND/CF email addresses

[CDN Aviator]

We were instructed/told to go to this new format months ago.  Our unit Sgt-Maj handed it down and each sect supvr had to make sure/enforce that it was done.   No big deal, it just takes up a lot more space at the bottom of your email and when it has gone to a few other people, as in either replies or forwarding...it adds up to PAGES. 

Did they bother to tell you that it only required for emails to organizations outside DND ?

[Mike63]

Pssst...that "new" format was rolled out three years ago.  Take a look at the first post in the thread.   

The thread only recently got sidetracked onto the topic of Shared Services Canada.

Yeah I know it was 'rolled out' years ago.  All I was trying to say was that in our unit, it was only enforced a few months back.

[Mike63]

Did they bother to tell you that it only required for emails to organizations outside DND ?

And no they didn't.  We were only told "this is the only signature allowed".  We all have the same thing now.

[ArmyVern]

And no they didn't.  We were only told "this is the only signature allowed".  We all have the same thing now.

My Unit has the same policy in effect.

No big deal. It contains the same info and it's not like you have to type the sig block in each time. Why not use the one common format in a Unit for all your emails then? After all, you never know when an email of yours will need to be sent to an outside agency either civ or fed.

Take a 1st line Sup Tech at a Unit QM emailing to another Sup tech working in Cust Svcs for example ... officially, it only requires the 4 line simple sig block. What if that Cust Svcs tech then needs to forward that email to PWGSC or a local supplier because it's about something that needs to be contracted or LPOd? The supplier (in Quebec) needs specs on "what" exact item is required in order to supply ... how would they contact you, the end-user, to confirm?

Like it or not, we belong and work for the Feds; it's federal policy (as noted prior) and HAS been federal policy for many years now.

Why would anyone want to build in two different sig blocks and then have to pick and choose between each one every time they sent an email? Why not use the federal standard sig block and cover all the bases at once; as an added bonus, you can then have that default into every email you send saving you from having to make a choice. Seems simple enough to me.

**** If your email body is worded in either english (or french) --- the recipient is going to realize that you've communicated your requirement in either english (or french) as the primary language of that email. It's not rocket science. I've been using it for at least 3 years now (with outside agencies too!!) and never once have I sent out one in english 'body' text with the bilingual sig block and gotten a "french" response back. Likewise when I've sent out the main body text in french --- I'll get the answer back in french despite the bilingual sig block.



**** I'm curious if anyone can provide any data on CF aneurysm rates ... are they above the national average with people stressing over something as minimal mundane as this??

[CountDC]

I have 3 sig blocks set up -

Reply - Name and Rank. 

Internal - Standard stuff we always did - name, rank, posn, phone and fax.

external - the "new" bilingual and everything spelled out for the world format.

I have the reply and internal auto set to insert so the only one I have to select is the external one for the occasional time I need it. I also only use it on the first email I send.  The back and forth replies get the reply signature signature.

I hate having a one page email chain take up three pages because of all the external signature blocks.

[Journeyman]

**** I'm curious if anyone can provide any data on CF aneurysm rates ... are they above the national average with people stressing over something as minimal mundane as this??