My suggestion remains unchanged. You are not asking Outlook questions here.
What you specify as the mailing address in Outlook is of no consequence when
it comes to constructing the complex merge you described. The Mailing
Address is a derived field in Outlook. You would not use a derived field for
a merge in Word under the circumstances you require. You would use the
individual address elements which comprise them. And you would need to set
the conditions for which field is used and what to do if that field is not
populated--all Word questions.

Signature
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
Sorry if I'm persisting too much, but I still think there's an Outlook issue
here: How does Outlook expose the value in the contacts checkbox "This is the
mailing address?" The closest I can find is "Mailng Address Indicator" - but
it always comes up blank. Without the information in that checkbox, no
condition can be tested, and I've simply never seen it in either an export or
a Merge Field list.
Thanks for your patience!
> My suggestion remains unchanged. You are not asking Outlook questions here.
> What you specify as the mailing address in Outlook is of no consequence when
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> >> > in
> >> > advance!
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] - 05 Jun 2006 23:12 GMT
When you start a merge from Outlook, then Outlook's fields will be available
to you for a simple merge, including its derived fields such as "Mailing
Address."
However, if you described accurately what you wanted to do, that would not
serve your needs. You described a complex merge based on conditions (note
your phrase "only when" in your post). That's a much tougher nut to crack.
You must use Word's "Insert Word Field" function which will permit
conditional merges and construct your merge layout very carefully so you can
suppress blank lines when a field is not populated.
There are not Outlook questions. Read Word's Help pages. Read Word's KB.
Post in a Word group to see if anyone there knows how to do this.

Signature
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
> Sorry if I'm persisting too much, but I still think there's an Outlook
> issue
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>> >> > in
>> >> > advance!