adress book : fax & e-mail data

A user says she can import into WSS 2.0 only contacts that have fax numbers
and e-mail addresses in her Adress Book.

Can someone confirm this, please?

If so, is there a way to import all her contacts?

Thank you.

Mike
Thu Jul 28 23:50:25 CDT 2005

This is WSS FAQ item

http://www.asaris-matrix.com/mvp-walsh/Lists/WSS%20FAQ/DispForm.aspx?ID=285

no e-mail address.

Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland
WSS FAQ http://wss.collutions.com
please reply to the newsgroup only

"bill tie" <billtie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:121F1DC7-D0C3-4627-88EA-2197A37BBF71@microsoft.com...
>
> A user says she can import into WSS 2.0 only contacts that have fax
> numbers
> and e-mail addresses in her Adress Book.
>
> Can someone confirm this, please?
>
> If so, is there a way to import all her contacts?
>
> Thank you.
>

billtie
Fri Jul 29 04:48:01 CDT 2005


Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

Quote from your blog: "There *is* a logical reason for the rejection, you'll
find."

Without being facetious, what's the "logical reason?"

Plus, is there a workaround that wouldn't require she type in 400+ fake
e-mail addresses.

Mike
Fri Jul 29 05:52:04 CDT 2005

I don't know of a workaround.

... and I meant in the FAQ (it's not a blog - that's somewhere else)
"logical" in the sense of there is a reason for it (i.e. it's not random).

Maybe I should change the text to avoid non-facetious ( :) ) comments ...

Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland

"bill tie" <billtie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BC8E18B2-DB89-443D-89B5-819860100BA7@microsoft.com...
>
> Mike,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> Quote from your blog: "There *is* a logical reason for the rejection,
> you'll
> find."
>
> Without being facetious, what's the "logical reason?"
>
> Plus, is there a workaround that wouldn't require she type in 400+ fake
> e-mail addresses.
>

Mike
Fri Jul 29 06:08:57 CDT 2005

>I don't know of a workaround.

I should however say that as a workaround is likely to lie in
Exchange/Outlook, I'm unlikely to know of a workaround (and the guy I
usually ask such questions is away for a few days).

So there may well be one.

Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland

"Mike Walsh" <englantilainen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23FwPRuClFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I don't know of a workaround.
>
> ... and I meant in the FAQ (it's not a blog - that's somewhere else)
> "logical" in the sense of there is a reason for it (i.e. it's not random).
>
> Maybe I should change the text to avoid non-facetious ( :) ) comments ...
>
> Mike Walsh, Helsinki, Finland
>
> "bill tie" <billtie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BC8E18B2-DB89-443D-89B5-819860100BA7@microsoft.com...
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> Thank you for your reply.
>>
>> Quote from your blog: "There *is* a logical reason for the rejection,
>> you'll
>> find."
>>
>> Without being facetious, what's the "logical reason?"
>>
>> Plus, is there a workaround that wouldn't require she type in 400+ fake
>> e-mail addresses.
>>
>
>