Thomas- Sunday, September 22, 2002, 7:29:36 AM, you wrote:
TF> Nice solution. ;-) But why did you hardcode the3 TBUDL address? I TF> think if you do it the generic way as you have posted, you will have TF> tamed the danger of folder templates. TF> IOW now replies to all messages in that folder (which presumably hold TF> only TBUDL messages, but that's another point) are sent to TBUDL. If TF> you use the generic solution, and a message was sent to you privately TF> and ended up in that folder for some reason, your reply will not be TF> sent to TBUDL. It will be sent to yourself, but no harm will be done. Er...no...I *didn't* hardcode it. I was just saying that since I always expect the To address to be TBUDL it could have been hardcoded. As you point out, it could conceivably get me into trouble if I did. I'm not too happy about having to set up the macros to deal with a bug in the list software in the first place, and I hope it's the only folder template I ever have to code. And I also hope to retire this one once the list software gets fixed. -Mark Wieder Using The Bat! v1.60h on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 2 -- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
