Okay, okay...so I wasn't precise enough....I DO have it as "linux-newbie,"
NOT "Linux-Newbie. I just typed it wrong in my posting. My mistake, and
most humble apologies. And you're right, it's "To" and "Cc:" and not "TO"
and "CC:" Again, I DO have it correct in Outlook, I just mistyped it here.
Okay, enough of that.
Now, check this out. See the address right below here? It says
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" That's what was screwing me up. However, I
have deleted everything after the "@," and now it's working great. And BTW,
I have TWO rules: one rule sorts on the To field, and the other one sorts on
the Cc: field.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 22:01
Subject: Re: email sorting rules
Trust me, there IS a difference. I'm on another LUG list, the initial
postings and the replies ALWAYS go directly to the list, without exception.
It's great. When someone wants to send a post, he sends it to the list
address. When the others receive it, it shows the person who sent it as the
sender so everyone knows who sent it. However, when you click "reply," it
replies to the list. Pretty cool, huh? Keeps things nice and simple, for
newbies like me.
>> I don't know the capabilities of Outlook, but can you either sort on To:
OR
>> Cc: "linux-newbie" without the rest of the address, OR on the Sender:
header
>> (which always seems to be "[EMAIL PROTECTED]")?Either
>> should serve you, based on what I notice about message headers.
>
>I would agree with Ray, however just a comment.
>
>Joseph Spacone wrote "TO:Linux-newbie" and "CC:Linux-newbie" that is
>possably his problem "linux-newbie" would be more appropriate i would
>imagen, +, its Cc: not CC: and To not TO, as Ray wrote above.
>
>As far as i can see there is not much differenace (if any), with headers
>from this group as any other.
