On 4/26/04 10:00 PM, "Entourage:mac Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It orignally wasn't with v.X either, and now it is as a standalone product. >> So the correct answer there is "I don't know", because no one really does. > > Actually, the correct answer is "No." As I previously wrote, these were the > questions I asked the MacBU employee who gave a presentation to the > Sacramento MUG. She said the product was simply not popular enough to > warrant selling it individually. Really? Because that's how it's listed on Microsoft's site, hence the URL and the price. It seems odd to have a price listed for something that doesn't exist. In fact, I specifically recall the annoucement when E'rage was offered as an unbundled item.."Due to customer demand..." As well, unless this person has the ability to predict the future with utter reliability the correct answer is one of two: 1) I don't know 2) We aren't initially, but if there's sufficient customer demand, then nothing's impossible. > >>> Will it be able to synchronize contacts and calendars with >>> the iPod? >> >> Not without third party software. But all you need is AppleScript. There's >> already one for tasks. > > Again, I know. She said they left that functionality to third-party > developers. Of course, if a shareware author can do it, then Microsoft can > do it. If I'm going to pay $230 for Entourage 2004, do I want to pay another > $15 for that functionality? If it's that important, then the answer is obvious. Of course were MS to do it, then we'd have the inevitable protests that they're trying to kill shareware developers, the shareware is better than M$'s bogus attempts, yadda, yadda. As well, the tasks script I mention is freeware. If it were of any importance to me at all, I would have scripted this long ago. But it's not, so I don't see a point in solving a problem I don't have. You're also not paying $230 for E'rage. You're paying that for Office. If you only want E'rage, I'd suggest waiting for the actual release to see if they initially continue the existing E'rage v.X SKU. If not, then start sending emails, and get those who feel the same to do the same. Customer demand and all that rot. > >>> And the return receipt functionality just discussed. >> >> With what mail system? Because as soon as you go onto the internet, that >> functionality is worse than hit or miss. > > Even just sending return receipts to messages received from other Entourage > users would be something. All I'm asking if for return support for the > Disposition-Notification-To and Return-Receipt-To header specs. See > QuickMail Pro for an elegant implementation. QuickMail and <anywordotherthanbigpainintheadmin'skeister> is an oxymoron. As welll, there are mail servers configured to reject those types of messages, etc. I use it, and if I get a reply from 10% of the mails I send out, it's a shock. In fact, I use it to tell me who's running Communigate Pro, that's the only reliable one I've seen. Which brings up another point. I've never gotten a reply back from the client. Ever. No matter which client. ALL my * receipt replies have always been from the server. So what is the point in MS adding the code in to support a feature that is utterly unreliable in its use beyond what's there when you could just as easily implement this yourself via a mail rule looking for the specific headers? john -- Head wounds do tend to bleed a lot. Don�t panic. -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
