 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Outlook / Calendaring / December 2005Free Busy in 2006
Of our 300 or so users of Outlook Calendaring we can only see the free/busy information for 2006 on a handful of them. We don't have any trouble with free/busy up to the end of 2005. I had read some of the other postings and MS always recommended changing the default 2 month publishing of free/busy to something larger, so we changed it to 6 months, but there was no change. Any other suggestions? Try the following for the clients that can't be seen in 2006, Close Outlook at the run command dialog box type "outlook.exe /cleanfreebusy" This should clean up the users free/busy database and make them availble to be seen in the scheduler. Not sure why this only happens for the 2006 year. > Of our 300 or so users of Outlook Calendaring we can only see the free/busy > information for 2006 on a handful of them. We don't have any trouble with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Any other suggestions? Thank you, H. It turns out that a 2-step process did the trick. First we increased the publish time to 6 months, then we ran the cleanfreebusy utility. Neither one itself was effective, but both in this order cleared everybody up. I wonder why we didn't have any trouble going into 2004 or 2005, but such are the mysteries of software. Marge > Try the following for the clients that can't be seen in 2006, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > > Any other suggestions? Perhaps because of Leap Year and everything gets catawhompied?  SignatureMilly Staples [MVP - Outlook] Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without reading. After furious head scratching, MAB asked: | Thank you, H. It turns out that a 2-step process did the trick. | First we increased the publish time to 6 months, then we ran the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] ||| ||| Any other suggestions?
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.