Feedback by UserVoice

Oscar Stankard

My feedback

  1. 371 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Oscar Stankard commented  · 

    A little shocked to see this is only possible with directory sync, Microsoft are promoting cloud only more and more and this basic limitation on functionality is very strange. Please can we see basic password complexity possible within AzureAD, the same as it is in on-prem AD, if AzureAD and cloud only is supposed to be the new way Microsoft are promoting and moving users towards?

    Requiring secure passwords should be a basic part of an online and internet-facing authentication system, most people don't have directory sync enabled and this is a strange restriction.

    If we're being more and more railroaded towards an SSO world where a single credential gives complete access, to the whole internet, to all manners of data and privilege, it's a bit of an omission to allow reuse of passwords, parts of username, use of common passwords, passwords of only 7 characters.

    If someone wants to secure their Hotmail with such a password that's fine but to have no way (short of AD premium, B2C or dir sync to an on-prem AD most don't have) to set a better standard of password (and after such a length of time/volume of requests) is as negligent as it is irrational.

    Thanks for your timely reconsideration of this misguided policy.

  2. 4,275 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    193 comments  ·  Microsoft 365 Groups  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi, As announced at Ignite Sep 2020, we will be making this functionality available as an open source tool by the end of the year. It can be used to pull in 1 or more security groups (nested or not) to drive the membership of a M365 Group. The membership will be pulled in as a flat list and kept in sync with the security group membership. However, if you have a pressing need for it before then, please reach out to GMMSupport@service.microsoft.com for a download of the tool. There is no support provided for the tool from Microsoft, other than answering any question around how we use it here. Link to the tool demo at Ignite: Making IT more efficient with improvements to Microsoft 365 Groups – https://aka.ms/Admin1011

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Oscar Stankard commented  · 

    Are we nearly there yet? Getting some form of nesting to work is not that hard, it's when all the complexity of the other services are considered. Is there no way of setting up an Office 365 group to at least receive copies of emails sent to the parent group even if not with full membership of each service that the Office 365 group might confer on its members?

    As others have said the default (and auto-conversions?) seem to railroad people towards 365 groups and they only find out later they don't work in the same way they used to and they can't use a fundamental Exchange/AD management technique.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Oscar Stankard commented  · 

    Come on really, how long is it going to take, you've been 'just about' to fix 365 group nesting for 3 years now? I can't remember the number of times I thought I'd check back on this and find it's been fixed and then find still not.

    If you can't call it nesting perhaps you'd permit us to 'tag' users with certain 'skills' or 'trust' so we can use dynamic membership to build the group, rather than see it as a 'groups of groups'. Either way having to manually add every single member basically renders the system unusable for groups above 20 people. And who's going to learn powershell and develop/find a script just to do what they can do with a normal group? A script that runs several times a day to check updates to subordinate groups, and would have to be the only way group changes are made or cause conflicts, the more I think about it the more broken it sounds.

    Please please please just let 365 groups allow nesting already, or even elude to the reason you can't / no longer want to for the sake of my sanity.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Oscar Stankard commented  · 

    Why on earth have they still not done this, if there's a technical reason why not why would they not say what it is? There was such a big push to get people onto 365 groups (some of my DG groups getting auto-mangled into broken 365 groups by MS at one point, don't ask…) but clearly 365 groups are designed for tiny groups in tiny organisations only? I thought this was under development years ago (baffled as I was it was initially missing) but to still find a complete vacuum of information regarding this long-promised long-overdue functionality is incredibly frustrating.

    I like the functionality of 365 groups and their self-service subscription management etc, but I don't care about their associated service permissions / Yammer etc linking. If the issue is Microsoft can't work out how to extend the Exchange concept into these different systems can we not just have an option on the group for linking or otherwise with these systems? I'm sure Yammer's great, but if it being linked to a 365 group prevents me doing 'normal' things to that group it's making a simple task complex to preserve functionality I’m not using and am not interested with.

    Please, please please can we have an update on Office 365 group nesting. Is it getting closer to release or is it something that's found its way to the long grass due to an irreconcilable incompatibility where it's going to stay?

    Having to manually add every single member to a 365 group is an absolute time pit when you've got all the Departmental (for example) groups set up already and just want to add whole departments quickly and easily (not to mention without error). As and when a new person joins a department, working group, team or whatever it is (the main vision/purpose of a 365 group as far as I was told) you've got to add them both to that department and to all the teams that department participates in. This isn't just a doubling of work and propensity for error, it's an exponential increase. 365 Groups as it stands are not viable for large memberships or large organisations, without 3rd party tools or scripts anyway.

    If we can't add groups to other groups in such an established 'normal' way (and Microsoft expect people to continue to move their currently manageable groups onto these unmanageable ones) then we need some way of automating the management of these giant flat lists. Give us a way to more easily bulk-add/bulk-remove lists of members by their other memberships/tags/custom fields etc, even if they are subsequently converted/flattened to unwieldly flat lists of individual members on the back end when you commit. And I mean a graphical out-of-the-box way; like it or not, not everyone that finds themselves responsible for an email system knows PowerShell… let alone possesses an inclination or the time to learn it just to be able to do things they considered normal before.

    Nesting groups is something you've been able to do on every mail server since forever, why do I have to choose between sensible and logical (read 'normal') management of groups and the additional benefits of 365 Groups?

    I seem to remember at every turn 365 was railroading me into creating everything as a 365 group and being told it would be the only option eventually anyway. Certainly during the repair of our botched auto-migration to 365 Groups (not customer initiated either, to be clear) we were told that the move to 365 groups was inevitable anyway and other group types were to be deprecated in the not too distant future. Have they now dumped this idea and will now confirm the continuation of manageable DLs?

    It used to be possible to manage Exchange fairly easily out of the box without buying extra features or 3rd party tools, why does 365 need to railroad you onto such a hampered, unmanageable and seemingly incomplete feature?

    Please let us know when modern groups will support such basic and established methods of management, or at least a functional equivalent.

    Kind regards,
    Oscar

    Oscar Stankard supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base