Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- From: "Mike" <google@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 Apr 2005 16:06:22 -0700
Thanks for the feedback Russ, but I beg to differ about being
consistent: ie. one can enter (111)222-3333 manually in the fax wizard
- and the wizard DOES prefix the number with a 1 for long distance.
Manually entered numbers "magically" get prefixed with a 1, but address
book numbers do not. What's consistent about that?
-Mike
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- From: Russ Valentine [MVP Outlook]
- Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- References:
- Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- From: Mike
- Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- From: Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]
- Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- Prev by Date: Transferring a print job
- Next by Date: Re: Transferring a print job
- Previous by thread: Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- Next by thread: Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|