It is by design. It helps to prevent message looping. If the sender suddenly
turns his/her OOF on then your OOF reply may trigger off another reply and
so on and so on.
Regards
Mr Louis Joyce
Data Support Specialist
BT Ignite eSolutions
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim
This is the way it works. I mean, once you know they're out of the
office, why would you want to keep getting notified?
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 10 June 2002 11:16
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: Re Outlook2K
Great... not even noon on Monday and we've got a winner already for I
can't read the manual or the help files...
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:16
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re Outlook2K
Hi all,
I noticed on
Is this really necessary?
-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 June 2002 11:36
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Great... not even noon on Monday and we've got a winner already for I
can't read the manual or the help files
. I am not too concerned about it. Thanks very much folks.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 June 2002 11:21
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
This is the way it works. I mean, once you know they're out of the
office, why would you
Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Is this really necessary?
-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 June 2002 11:36
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Great... not even noon on Monday and we've got a winner already for I
can't read
with your conscience and that alone should be judgement
enough for you.
-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 June 2002 12:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
I felt so, yes. Was it really necessary for you to post to several
errr chaps, off-list perhaps?
Just a suggestion.
Regards
E.
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Not only did I think you were gibbering idiot when I read your initial msg,
but I now have a much lower opinion of you. So do us
Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Not only did I think you were gibbering idiot when I read your initial msg,
but I now have a much lower opinion of you. So do us a favour and if you
have something to say shutup. If I want any shit out of you I'll be sure to
squeeze your head little man.
Besides, I got
I refer you to Damian's answer further up the list. Assuming you can handle
reality.
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 13:22
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Not only did I think you were gibbering idiot
That's exactly how it is supposed to work. One reply for each sender, one
time.
I mean how many times does someone need to know you are out?
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re
Tell them to use a descriptive message.
I will be out of the office from 6-10 to 6-14, and returning on the
15th
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
Thanks Neil
Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
I felt so, yes. Was it really
:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
That's exactly how it is supposed to work. One reply for each sender, one
time. I mean how many times does someone need to know you are out?
-Original Message-
From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10
That is incorrect.
-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
But, Martin, that is NOT the way it worked in earlier versions of Outlook.
You would get repeated OOO
You must have been using a rule rather than the OOF assistant.
-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
But, Martin, that is NOT the way it worked in earlier
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dale Geoffrey
Edwards
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 7:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
But, Martin, that is NOT the way it worked in earlier versions of
Outlook. You would get repeated OOO replies, depending on how many
Nope. OOF only did that when it was broken. See Q223391.
- Original Message -
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
But, Martin, that is NOT the way it worked in earlier
coughbullshit/cough
-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 15:56
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Re Outlook2K
But, Martin, that is NOT the way it worked in earlier versions of Outlook.
You would get repeated OOO
19 matches
Mail list logo
