
Signature
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]
>If you want Outlok to perform periodic automatic send/receives at all,
>you'll have to accept the fact that it will always perform one at startup.
Poo!
Considering the market at which Outlook is aimed, I am surprised at
the all-or-nothing approach to options. For example, for some folders
I would like to keep sent and received messages together and for
others, to have the sent mail stored in the sent folder.
>Why not just ignore it until you're ready? How difficult is that?
C...c...cannot...ig..ig..ignore <g>. Some mails I just to not want to
get at midnight. Go figure...

Signature
Cheers,
DrT
"If you want to find out what is wrong
with democracy, spend five minutes with
the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Brian Tillman - 24 Mar 2008 16:54 GMT
> Poo!
>
> Considering the market at which Outlook is aimed, I am surprised at
> the all-or-nothing approach to options.
Microsoft tends to be take an either-one-way-or-the-other approach to its
options, in my opinion, but for the particular one we're discussing, I don't
see how it could be any other way. Since automatic send/receives work on a
timer, you need a start time in order to determine when subsequent events
occur. If Outlook didn't perform a send/receive at startup, how woule it
know when to perform the next send/receive? I suppose a "perform first
send/receive xx minutes after startup" option woul work, but I think that's
overly complex.
> For example, for some folders
> I would like to keep sent and received messages together and for
> others, to have the sent mail stored in the sent folder.
Again, Outlook is complex enough and every addition in complexity increases
the opportunity for undesirable interaction between the various threads in
Outlook.

Signature
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]