J
Jim Yarnold
RE:
Exchange 2000 w/ SP3
Outlook 2003 w/ SP1 and post SP1 Hotfixes.
We're finding a consistent issue with calendars that are delegated using the
"Send meeting requests and responses only to my delegates, not to me"
User1 sends a meeting request to User2 whose calendar is delegated to User3.
Unless User3 clicks on or opens the invitation the item does not show up on
User2's calendar as tentative.
This also happens with non delegated users however here is the issue with
this behavior:
If User3 is not watching the busy schedule of top-dog User2 and many invites
are coming in and not showing up in the free/busy as tentative the potential
for overlapping or conflicting appointments is very high as F/B is not
publishing the potential meetings as tentative, (meaning users see the time
as available despite others having already previously requested that time.)
User3 is frantic!
Is this behavior by design or is something awry with Free/Busy? (I would
guess the former but it's obvious that this 'feature' should be addressed)
Please advise, Thanks
Jim
Exchange 2000 w/ SP3
Outlook 2003 w/ SP1 and post SP1 Hotfixes.
We're finding a consistent issue with calendars that are delegated using the
"Send meeting requests and responses only to my delegates, not to me"
User1 sends a meeting request to User2 whose calendar is delegated to User3.
Unless User3 clicks on or opens the invitation the item does not show up on
User2's calendar as tentative.
This also happens with non delegated users however here is the issue with
this behavior:
If User3 is not watching the busy schedule of top-dog User2 and many invites
are coming in and not showing up in the free/busy as tentative the potential
for overlapping or conflicting appointments is very high as F/B is not
publishing the potential meetings as tentative, (meaning users see the time
as available despite others having already previously requested that time.)
User3 is frantic!
Is this behavior by design or is something awry with Free/Busy? (I would
guess the former but it's obvious that this 'feature' should be addressed)
Please advise, Thanks
Jim