Steven, In an effort to try and keep you on task here and not continue shooting yourself in the foot I will point out that Chris did indeed give you what you asked for. As for you assertion that it requires the same amount of key strokes to just add the six numbers that follows the Q; a case in point is q289606 returns 6 different articles. Only one of which is what I originally posted as a fix for this problem. So, he would have had to post it as "XADM: CDO Can Corrupt Data in Recurring Appointments [Q281935]."
As you can see and even you would have to admit that it is considerably more keystrokes than you had originally thought. Not to mention that you are demanding that he show off his godlike qualities by including the exact article and title off the top of his head. Finally, pointing you to Tech Net is quite appropriate. It is kind of like telling someone that that is hungry to "eat everything on their plate to grow up strong" rather than treat them as you would a child and tell them, "First, eat your green beans. Next eat your carrots. Chew each bite 100 times." For me, I prefer being treated like the big boy that I am. (No fat jokes :) ) Is that straightforward enough, eh? I even managed to keep this on-topic. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -----Original Message----- From: Steven Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:48 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept Interestingly enough, the same number of keystrokes could have been used to display a knowledgebase article "Qxxxxxx" to which you're alluding. But that would be too straightforward, eh? :) -s- > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:23 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > TechNet. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Steven Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > > > > Hmm... I've had Outlook98/2K installed on several Exchange > > 5.5 boxes (needed for certain backup agents, the InterOrg > > Synchronization Tool, etc) without any detrimental effects. > Sources? > > > > -s- > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:23 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > > > > > > > What ever you do. Do NOT install Outlook on the Exchange > > > server. There > > > has been known problems with that configuration. Because Exchange > > > Server uses a different MAPI dll than Outlook. > > > > > > Andrew, > > > MCSE (NT & W2K) + CCNA > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
