• WSMaryJ

    WSMaryJ

    @wsmaryj

    Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 3,815 total)
    Author
    Replies
    • in reply to: .PST Settings (OL 2003) #781617

      1) If you have Ol2003, why are you using an ANSI pst. If you use unicode, you lose the limit.
      2) There is an article by Sue Mosher that explains the convoluted method needed to copy views (unless you use exchange server) http://www.winnetmag.com/MicrosoftExchange…tlook_8650.html%5B/url%5D

    • in reply to: Can Outlook Bounce? (?) #780369

      No, and it’s a good thing because your vindictiveness will hurt more innocent people than it will punish infected people. The latest worms make up names to use in the to and from fields as well as take addresses and domains from web pages and other sources. You’ll only succeed in wasting bandwidth and other peoples time.

    • in reply to: Can Outlook Bounce? (?) #780370

      No, and it’s a good thing because your vindictiveness will hurt more innocent people than it will punish infected people. The latest worms make up names to use in the to and from fields as well as take addresses and domains from web pages and other sources. You’ll only succeed in wasting bandwidth and other peoples time.

    • in reply to: Recipients not getting all attachements (OL2002 sp2) #779999

      Verify the contact is not set to always get RTF. double click on the address in the contact to check. Also, find and delete the *.nick or *.NK2 file for your profile. RTF information is often remembered in that file.

    • in reply to: Recipients not getting all attachements (OL2002 sp2) #780000

      Verify the contact is not set to always get RTF. double click on the address in the contact to check. Also, find and delete the *.nick or *.NK2 file for your profile. RTF information is often remembered in that file.

    • in reply to: Contacts in Archive Folder (XP) #779991

      right click on the folder, choose properties. add the folders you want to search to the activities list. Note that it uses message id’s and copying creates new messages, so you may not get any results. You would need to move the contacts. I forget if you can add the archive folder to the default contacts – probably not since it’s in a different folder and outlook can’t search two folders at once.

    • in reply to: Virus (Doom) (2002) #779982

      sam. mike, tom, michael, jose and about 15 other names are in the mydoom package. The virus adds them to any domain name it finds and sends messages to or from them. In fact, it uses anthing following an @ as a domain. We’vrecieved a lot from NNTP message IDs. grin

    • in reply to: Virus (Doom) (2002) #779983

      sam. mike, tom, michael, jose and about 15 other names are in the mydoom package. The virus adds them to any domain name it finds and sends messages to or from them. In fact, it uses anthing following an @ as a domain. We’vrecieved a lot from NNTP message IDs. grin

    • in reply to: Recipients not getting all attachements (OL2002 sp2) #779962

      It’s not reall an OE problem – only Outlook can decipher RTF formatting. However, there is a utility called fentun.exe that can decode winmail.dats, but because OE doesn’t show the attachment, they need to jump through hoops to get it. It’s easier (and better netiquette) for the outlook user to use plain text or HTML. (HTML format should not result in winmail.dat attachments)

    • in reply to: Recipients not getting all attachements (OL2002 sp2) #779963

      It’s not reall an OE problem – only Outlook can decipher RTF formatting. However, there is a utility called fentun.exe that can decode winmail.dats, but because OE doesn’t show the attachment, they need to jump through hoops to get it. It’s easier (and better netiquette) for the outlook user to use plain text or HTML. (HTML format should not result in winmail.dat attachments)

    • in reply to: Outlook HTML message format (OL XP / OL 2003) #779958

      Beginning with Outlook 2002, it uses normal.dot. Email.dot caused a lot of problems and was one of the major reasons why no one recommended word as the editor in older versions.

    • in reply to: Outlook HTML message format (OL XP / OL 2003) #779959

      Beginning with Outlook 2002, it uses normal.dot. Email.dot caused a lot of problems and was one of the major reasons why no one recommended word as the editor in older versions.

    • in reply to: Macro to delete sent items (2002) #779652

      You can assign rules to toolbars. Outlook VBA is a bit funky compared to word and excel. It’s a not as easy and straightforward. Try http://www.outlookcode.com[/url%5D for more information about programming Outlook.

    • in reply to: Macro to delete sent items (2002) #779653

      You can assign rules to toolbars. Outlook VBA is a bit funky compared to word and excel. It’s a not as easy and straightforward. Try http://www.outlookcode.com[/url%5D for more information about programming Outlook.

    • in reply to: Virus from WWW (Outlook 2003) #779650

      Outlook 2003 blocks web bugs by default and includes an easy to toggle off method of reading all mail as plain text. But in all honesty, few people care about web bugs and those who do have been blocking them (and pop up ads) for years using other methods. google the microsoft newsgroups – the blocked web content gets an awful lot of complaints.for something so good and so easy to turn on per message.

    Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 3,815 total)