I blogged a few years ago about how I did an April Fool's edition of my college's ACM's newsletter. What I neglected to mention in that post is that I actually came up with the idea in September of that year, and I became the editor of the newsletter that month for the express intention of waiting it out until April so that I could write the darned article.
I'm not sure how best to interpret this story: either I'm incredibly persistent, or I have very few good ideas and thus when I sense a good one, I figure I might as well hold on.
Anyway, I bring this up because for the last two and a half years, I've put together a weekly email to the exchange team (innovatively named "The Weekly Exchange") that covers project status across all the teams intermixed with some funky graphics, contests, and interesting tidbits to keep people reading. It's been a pretty good experiment to see exactly what you need to do to get people to actually read blankety-blank status mails in all their inherent awfulness.
One of the perks is that I decided soon after starting that I was going to make a tradition of doing an April Fool's edition of the WE. I was recently rereading some of the old editions and thought it'd be fun to share some of the bits we had in them over the last few years.
Unfortunately I've had to censor this quite a bit because, well, it pokes fun at companies and people that I really don't want to poke at in public :-) So here are some of the tidbits remaining from this year's April Fool's WE, I'll post the other two years some other time. I realize that many of these are without context but I hope some folks still find them amusing.
To parallel the “code obfuscation” technology that exists today, Monad provides you with a “logging obfuscation” option that makes the logs unreadable to the average customer for security purposes. Simply use a “/confuse” switch when running any Monad script. Exchange has tried this “unreadable log” idea in Exchange 2003 and Exchange 2000. Unfortunately, with Exchange 5.5 we found that it resulted in a double-negative, thus making the logging actually readable. We are working with the SE team to see if this can be addressed in Exchange 5.5 SP8.
 The funny bit about this story is that no fewer than three people sent in the exact same joke about using less than 64 of the bits.