Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- From: "Russ Valentine [MVP Outlook]" <russval@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:35:53 -0500
You have not provided enough information for a response. I do not know which address book the Fax Wizard is using because you did not tell me.
I was talking about the need to use international format to process dialing rules by the Fax Service. That has been very consistent since the dawn of Microsoft Fax in Windows 95 and has been very well documented in the KB for 10 years.
------
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
Mike wrote:
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:
- 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]
- Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- From: Mike
- Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- Prev by Date: Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- Next by Date: Re: Requirement to enter fax nos for Outlook contacts in "canonical" format - absurd!
- 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
|
