From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00C4_01C5C529.EF3C88E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   Or you could have just read my email before you replied to it with =
more complaints and more evidence that you care more about complaining =
than the topics about which you complain.

Rich

  "Mike '/m'"  wrote in message =
news:8rmoj111q3g7s3sbuarrdenedijcsrvvuc{at}4ax.com...

  I played with this a bit more today.

  I changed the address that Outlook puts in the From: field for =
outgoing
  emails to email{at}[123.123.123.123] (I'll call this a "dotted quad"
  address for this message), then saved that new config.  I sent myself =
an
  email.  When the email arrived in my inbox, the From: address was the
  dotted quad.  I OMB clicked on the dotted quad address, and selected =
the
  add it to my address book option.

  Then I changed the From: address back to what it should be.

  Now I can send an email to that dotted quad address, Outlook accepts =
it
  as input.

  The reason I did this is that previously when I wanted to send an =
email
  to a dotted quad address, I could enter it into the To: field, but
  Outlook would not allow me to send it.  Outlook would push me over to
  enter the address into Outlook's address book.  =20

  I guess that Outlook doesn't allow me to send an email to someone who =
is
  not in my address book?  I'm not sure why it would do this, I know =
that
  Outlook 97 didn't have this behavior.  Maybe that's why Outlook '97
  worked and Outlook 2003 doesn't.

  In any case, it looks like it may be the input routines for entering =
an
  email address into Outlook's address book that has the problem with =
the
  RFC-compliant dotted quad address.  Once a dotted quad address is in =
the
  address book, I can send email to it.

  Weird.

   /m



  On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:50:32 -0400, "Geo"  wrote:

  >"Mike '/m'"  wrote in message
  >news:25ugj1psik6mb69ifo2vfg6u7fg5uapm43{at}4ax.com...
  >
  >> I have not been able to get Outlook to send an email to
  >>
  >>    email{at}[123.123.123.123]
  >>
  >> where 123.123.123.123 is the IP address of a email server, and =
'email'
  >> is a valid email account on that server.  I believe this is an RFC
  >> requirement, just like proper SMTP handling.
  >
  >Perhaps you have an email admin like me who blocks email to an =
{at}ipaddress
  >address? Some things need to change because of spam and many of the =
rfc's
  >are sort of unchanging if you know what I mean.
  >
  >Oh, I also block remote bounce notifications because they cause more
  >problems than they solve. If you accept the email then deliver it, =
don't be
  >returning it as undeliverable after you accept delivery is how it =
works in
  >todays spam and virus filled world.
  >
  >> Also, I keep nicknames for my friends.  For example, I use bob-w =
for Bob
  >> at work, Bob-h for Bob at home.  Well, Bob changed jobs, so I =
changed
  >> the email address for Bob-w in the address book to his new email
  >> address.  Unfortunately, Outlook also stores the email address =
somewhere
  >> else, and insists on sending Bob-w emails to his old email address. =
I've
  >> not found the other location in the address book or configuration
  >> options yet.  I now have a NewBob-w entry in the address book to =
work
  >> around this feature.
  >
  >Yeah, Microsoft probably let the guy who did IE's braindead =
autocomplete
  >write that stupid routine. He need to be 2x4'd.
  >
  >> Don't get me started on Outlook and IMAP....
  >
  >I don't believe in IMAP in the ISP world, it's a po box not a damn =
garage.
  >
  >Geo.
  >
------=_NextPart_000_00C4_01C5C529.EF3C88E0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   Or you
could have just =
read my email=20
before you replied to it with more complaints and more evidence that you = care=20
more about complaining than the topics about which you =
complain.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>=20">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>=20
  wrote in message news:8rmoj111q3g=
7s3sbuarrdenedijcsrvvuc{at}4ax.com...I=20
  played with this a bit more today.I changed the address that =
Outlook=20
  puts in the From: field for outgoingemails to email{at}[123.123.123.123]">mailto:email{at}[123.123.123.123">email{at}[123.123.123.123]
=
(I'll call=20
  this a "dotted quad"address for this message), then
saved that new =

  config.  I sent myself anemail.  When the
email arrived =
in my=20
  inbox, the From: address was thedotted quad.  I OMB clicked =
on the=20
  dotted quad address, and selected theadd it to my address book=20
  option.Then I changed the From: address back to what
it should =

  be.Now I can send an email to that dotted quad address, =
Outlook=20
  accepts itas input.The reason I did this is that =
previously when I=20
  wanted to send an emailto a dotted quad address, I could enter it =
into the=20
  To: field, butOutlook would not allow me to send it.  Outlook =
would=20
  push me over toenter the address into Outlook's address =
book.  =20
  I guess that Outlook doesn't allow me to send an email to =
someone who=20
  isnot in my address book?  I'm not sure why it would do this, =
I know=20
  thatOutlook 97 didn't have this behavior.  Maybe that's why =
Outlook=20
  '97worked and Outlook 2003 doesn't.In any
case, it looks =
like it=20
  may be the input routines for entering anemail address into =
Outlook's=20
  address book that has the problem with theRFC-compliant dotted =
quad=20
  address.  Once a dotted quad address is in theaddress book, I =
can=20
  send email to
it.Weird. /mOn
Mon, =
26 Sep=20
  2005 21:50:32 -0400, "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> =
wrote:>"Mike=20
  '/m'" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
=
wrote in=20
  =
message>news:25ugj1psik6mb69ifo2vfg6u7fg5uapm43{at}4ax.com...>=
>>=20
  I have not been able to get Outlook to send an email=20
 
to>>>>   
email{at}[123.123.123.123]>=">mailto:email{at}[123.123.123.123">email{at}[123.123.123.123]>=
;>>>=20
  where 123.123.123.123 is the IP address of a email server, and=20
  'email'>> is a valid email account on that
server.  I =
believe=20
  this is an RFC>> requirement, just like proper SMTP=20
  handling.>>Perhaps you have an email
admin like me who =
blocks=20
  email to an {at}ipaddress>address? Some things need to change =
because of=20
  spam and many of the rfc's>are sort of unchanging if you know =
what I=20
  mean.>>Oh, I also block remote bounce
notifications =
because they=20
  cause more>problems than they solve. If you accept the email =
then=20
  deliver it, don't be>returning it as undeliverable after you =
accept=20
  delivery is how it works in>todays spam and virus filled=20
  world.>>> Also, I keep nicknames for my =
friends.  For=20
  example, I use bob-w for Bob>> at work, Bob-h for Bob at =
home. =20
  Well, Bob changed jobs, so I changed>> the email
address for =
Bob-w=20
  in the address book to his new email>> address.  =
Unfortunately,=20
  Outlook also stores the email address somewhere>>
else, and =
insists=20
  on sending Bob-w emails to his old email address.
I've>> not =
found=20
  the other location in the address book or configuration>> =
options=20
  yet.  I now have a NewBob-w entry in the address book to =
work>>=20
  around this feature.>>Yeah, Microsoft
probably let the =
guy who=20
  did IE's braindead autocomplete>write that stupid routine. He =
need to=20
  be 2x4'd.>>> Don't get me
started on Outlook and=20
  IMAP....>>I don't believe in IMAP in
the ISP world, it's =
a po=20
  box not a damn =
garage.>>Geo.>

------=_NextPart_000_00C4_01C5C529.EF3C88E0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5