Duplicate records when entering fax #

[Terrance]

I'm using Outlook 2002 and imported all of my contacts
from Palm Desktop into Outlook. For some reason all of
the records that contained fax numbers duplicated
themselves with one having all the contact info and one
having the name and fax number only. I deleted the
records that contained only the fax number and it deleted
the fax number from the other record. Now everytime I
input a new contact w/ a fax # Outlook creates a separate
record that includes only the fax info. Any idea to why
this is happening?

TIA

Terrance

 

[Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]]

Ever search these groups before you post? Answered thousands of times:

The standard behavior for the Outlook Address book is to display all
electronic addresses (both fax and e-mail). That behavior cannot be changed.
The only way to prevent the display of fax numbers is to store them in a
different field or to disguise them (e.g., precede them with an alpha
character) so that Outlook won't recognize them as phone numbers.
There are also a number of utilities available that can do this for you
automatically. Some are listed here:
http://www.slipstick.com/contacts/nofax.htm

 

[Andy]

Will this "feature" be fixed in future versions of
Outlook? Outlook 2000 didn't do this.

-----Original Message-----
Ever search these groups before you post? Answered thousands of times:

The standard behavior for the Outlook Address book is to display all
electronic addresses (both fax and e-mail). That behavior cannot be changed.
The only way to prevent the display of fax numbers is to store them in a
different field or to disguise them (e.g., precede them with an alpha
character) so that Outlook won't recognize them as phone numbers.
There are also a number of utilities available that can do this for you
automatically. Some are listed here:
http://www.slipstick.com/contacts/nofax.htm

--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

I'm using Outlook 2002 and imported all of my contacts
from Palm Desktop into Outlook. For some reason all of
the records that contained fax numbers duplicated
themselves with one having all the contact info and one
having the name and fax number only. I deleted the
records that contained only the fax number and it deleted
the fax number from the other record. Now everytime I
input a new contact w/ a fax # Outlook creates a separate
record that includes only the fax info. Any idea to why
this is happening?

TIA

Terrance

.

 

[Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]]

Yes it did if you were using the Outlook Address Book.
We have no information on versions after Outlook 2003. It is certainly a
request that has been made a lot.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

Will this "feature" be fixed in future versions of
Outlook? Outlook 2000 didn't do this.

-----Original Message-----
Ever search these groups before you post? Answered thousands of times:

The standard behavior for the Outlook Address book is to display all
electronic addresses (both fax and e-mail). That behavior cannot be changed.
The only way to prevent the display of fax numbers is to store them in a
different field or to disguise them (e.g., precede them with an alpha
character) so that Outlook won't recognize them as phone numbers.
There are also a number of utilities available that can do this for you
automatically. Some are listed here:
http://www.slipstick.com/contacts/nofax.htm

--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

I'm using Outlook 2002 and imported all of my contacts
from Palm Desktop into Outlook. For some reason all of
the records that contained fax numbers duplicated
themselves with one having all the contact info and one
having the name and fax number only. I deleted the
records that contained only the fax number and it deleted
the fax number from the other record. Now everytime I
input a new contact w/ a fax # Outlook creates a separate
record that includes only the fax info. Any idea to why
this is happening?

TIA

Terrance

.

 

[Andy]

Thanks for answering so soon. I guess I'm confused. I'm using Outlook 2000 at work and Outlook 2002 on my notebook. MY address book for 2000 does not list multiple lines with the same name for each fax number or e-mail address. It will show e-mail addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers in a single line for each name, which I think is what people are asking for. The address book for 2002 does do the multiple line thing. I also use a Palm Pilot and Hot-Sync between the two computers all the time. Fax numbers and e-mail address show up in both program's individual's Contact's box, so the data seems to transfer to the right place and the display of the address books (multiple lines versus single line for each name) still stays the same for each program. It just the way 2002 displays names in the address book and address pull down box when addressing e-mails that is aggrevating

Mayby I'm not using the right Address Book with Outlook 2000. When I go to About Address book it says it is Address 6.00.2800.1123.

 

[Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]]

Right. You aren't using the Outlook Address Book. That's the Windows Address
Book. You're using the stripped down version of Outlook 2000 known as
"Internet Mail Only" which didn't have all the transports the full version
has, so it borrows a lot of functions from Outlook Express--like its address
book engine.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

Thanks for answering so soon. I guess I'm confused. I'm using Outlook

2000 at work and Outlook 2002 on my notebook. MY address book for 2000 does
not list multiple lines with the same name for each fax number or e-mail
address. It will show e-mail addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers in a
single line for each name, which I think is what people are asking for. The
address book for 2002 does do the multiple line thing. I also use a Palm
Pilot and Hot-Sync between the two computers all the time. Fax numbers and
e-mail address show up in both program's individual's Contact's box, so the
data seems to transfer to the right place and the display of the address
books (multiple lines versus single line for each name) still stays the same
for each program. It just the way 2002 displays names in the address book
and address pull down box when addressing e-mails that is aggrevating.

Mayby I'm not using the right Address Book with Outlook 2000. When I go

to About Address book it says it is Address 6.00.2800.1123.

 

[Andy]

So the next question is can Outlook 2000 (the one on my
notebook) be set up to use the Windows Address book? I
have successfully exported all my addresss from the
Outlook address book to the Windows Address book using a
CSV text file. This would be a very acceptable set up
for me since I don't fax from my Outlook program anyway.
Andy

-----Original Message-----
Right. You aren't using the Outlook Address Book. That's the Windows Address
Book. You're using the stripped down version of Outlook 2000 known as
"Internet Mail Only" which didn't have all the transports the full version
has, so it borrows a lot of functions from Outlook Express--like its address
book engine.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

newsB83F2F7-0557-48D6-9066-

(e-mail address removed)...

Thanks for answering so soon. I guess I'm confused.

I'm using Outlook
2000 at work and Outlook 2002 on my notebook. MY address book for 2000 does
not list multiple lines with the same name for each fax number or e-mail
address. It will show e-mail addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers in a
single line for each name, which I think is what people are asking for. The
address book for 2002 does do the multiple line thing. I also use a Palm
Pilot and Hot-Sync between the two computers all the time. Fax numbers and
e-mail address show up in both program's individual's Contact's box, so the
data seems to transfer to the right place and the display of the address
books (multiple lines versus single line for each name) still stays the same
for each program. It just the way 2002 displays names in the address book
and address pull down box when addressing e-mails that is aggrevating.

Mayby I'm not using the right Address Book with

Outlook 2000. When I go
to About Address book it says it is Address 6.00.2800.1123.


.

 

[Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]]

No. Full versions of Outlook will never use the WAB. You can force the WAB
to use Outlook as its data source, however, with a reg hack.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

So the next question is can Outlook 2000 (the one on my
notebook) be set up to use the Windows Address book? I
have successfully exported all my addresss from the
Outlook address book to the Windows Address book using a
CSV text file. This would be a very acceptable set up
for me since I don't fax from my Outlook program anyway.
Andy

-----Original Message-----
Right. You aren't using the Outlook Address Book. That's the Windows Address
Book. You're using the stripped down version of Outlook 2000 known as
"Internet Mail Only" which didn't have all the transports the full version
has, so it borrows a lot of functions from Outlook Express--like its address
book engine.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

newsB83F2F7-0557-48D6-9066-

(e-mail address removed)...

Thanks for answering so soon. I guess I'm confused.

I'm using Outlook
2000 at work and Outlook 2002 on my notebook. MY address book for 2000 does
not list multiple lines with the same name for each fax number or e-mail
address. It will show e-mail addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers in a
single line for each name, which I think is what people are asking for. The
address book for 2002 does do the multiple line thing. I also use a Palm
Pilot and Hot-Sync between the two computers all the time. Fax numbers and
e-mail address show up in both program's individual's Contact's box, so the
data seems to transfer to the right place and the display of the address
books (multiple lines versus single line for each name) still stays the same
for each program. It just the way 2002 displays names in the address book
and address pull down box when addressing e-mails that is aggrevating.

Mayby I'm not using the right Address Book with

Outlook 2000. When I go
to About Address book it says it is Address 6.00.2800.1123.


.

 

[Andy]

So who do we thank for this?

-----Original Message-----
No. Full versions of Outlook will never use the WAB. You can force the WAB
to use Outlook as its data source, however, with a reg hack.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

So the next question is can Outlook 2000 (the one on my
notebook) be set up to use the Windows Address book? I
have successfully exported all my addresss from the
Outlook address book to the Windows Address book using a
CSV text file. This would be a very acceptable set up
for me since I don't fax from my Outlook program anyway.
Andy

-----Original Message-----
Right. You aren't using the Outlook Address Book.

That's
the Windows Address

Book. You're using the stripped down version of

Outlook
2000 known as

"Internet Mail Only" which didn't have all the transports the full version
has, so it borrows a lot of functions from Outlook Express--like its address
book engine.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

newsB83F2F7-0557-48D6-9066-

(e-mail address removed)...
Thanks for answering so soon. I guess I'm confused. I'm using Outlook
2000 at work and Outlook 2002 on my notebook. MY address book for 2000 does
not list multiple lines with the same name for each

fax
number or e-mail

address. It will show e-mail addresses, phone numbers and fax numbers in a
single line for each name, which I think is what

people
are asking for. The

address book for 2002 does do the multiple line thing. I also use a Palm
Pilot and Hot-Sync between the two computers all the time. Fax numbers and
e-mail address show up in both program's individual's Contact's box, so the
data seems to transfer to the right place and the display of the address
books (multiple lines versus single line for each

name)
still stays the same

for each program. It just the way 2002 displays names in the address book
and address pull down box when addressing e-mails that is aggrevating.

Mayby I'm not using the right Address Book with Outlook 2000. When I go
to About Address book it says it is Address 6.00.2800.1123.


.

.

 

[Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]]

Whom do we thank for what?
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

So who do we thank for this?

-----Original Message-----
No. Full versions of Outlook will never use the WAB. You can force the WAB
to use Outlook as its data source, however, with a reg hack.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

So the next question is can Outlook 2000 (the one on my
notebook) be set up to use the Windows Address book? I
have successfully exported all my addresss from the
Outlook address book to the Windows Address book using a
CSV text file. This would be a very acceptable set up
for me since I don't fax from my Outlook program anyway.
Andy
-----Original Message-----
Right. You aren't using the Outlook Address Book. That's
the Windows Address
Book. You're using the stripped down version of Outlook
2000 known as
"Internet Mail Only" which didn't have all the
transports the full version
has, so it borrows a lot of functions from Outlook
Express--like its address
book engine.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
message
(e-mail address removed)...
Thanks for answering so soon. I guess I'm confused.
I'm using Outlook
2000 at work and Outlook 2002 on my notebook. MY
address book for 2000 does
not list multiple lines with the same name for each fax
number or e-mail
address. It will show e-mail addresses, phone numbers
and fax numbers in a
single line for each name, which I think is what people
are asking for. The
address book for 2002 does do the multiple line thing.
I also use a Palm
Pilot and Hot-Sync between the two computers all the
time. Fax numbers and
e-mail address show up in both program's individual's
Contact's box, so the
data seems to transfer to the right place and the
display of the address
books (multiple lines versus single line for each name)
still stays the same
for each program. It just the way 2002 displays names
in the address book
and address pull down box when addressing e-mails that
is aggrevating.

Mayby I'm not using the right Address Book with
Outlook 2000. When I go
to About Address book it says it is Address
6.00.2800.1123.


.

.