Incoming emails displaying incorrectly when address is blank OL200

[BillWard]

I have an email being automatically forwarded, the original is picked up by a
computer running OL2000 (WinXP) and the forwarded one by another running
OL2002 (Vista).

Route being: main mail server> spam checker (split here)> OL2000 and
main mail server> spam checker (split here)> mail server> OL2002

On OL2000 it displays as either HTML or plain-text as sent, on OL2002 it
shows the message header as body text along with all contents as plain-text
(including MIME attachments). This is limited to a small number of senders
with a commonality that in OL2000 the recipient is of the form "undisclosed
recipients:" (minus quotes) with an identical email address; on OL2002 it is
simply blank. No other email addresses are displayed, presumably BCC being
used.

Other then the addressing I can see no other connections between the
senders, they use different email programs and different mail servers. The
company hosting the forwarding server claim they do not alter the emails in
any way except to change the destination. For the second server intercepting
the message before it gets to OL2002 shows text and attachments as should
be, but with a blank "to" address.

All other emails display as they should with no difficulty.

I have attempted to replicate this by sending mail from another account
using "undisclosed recipients:" and BCC with no success.

Does anyone have any ideas?

 

[BillWard]

Just to confirm I've just picked up the forwarded mail using OL2000 on XP and
the offending messages display without problem so it's definitely either
OL2002 or Vista, or a combination thereof.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Just to confirm I've just picked up the forwarded mail using OL2000
on XP and the offending messages display without problem so it's
definitely either OL2002 or Vista, or a combination thereof.

I know that Vista has a problem when receiving Bcc'd messages with OL 2003.
Perhaps the same problem occurs with OL 2002 (which is not compatible with
Vista anyway).

 

[BillWard]

I know that Vista has a problem when receiving Bcc'd messages with OL 2003.
Perhaps the same problem occurs with OL 2002 (which is not compatible with
Vista anyway).

Interesting, thanks. I note it only seems to happen with some Bcc'd messages
and not others. OOC do you know if this is fixed in the latest version?

 

[Brian Tillman]

Interesting, thanks. I note it only seems to happen with some Bcc'd
messages and not others. OOC do you know if this is fixed in the
latest version?

The latest version of what?

 

[PLB]

Since it's a known problem (and has been known and extensively complained
about in MANY forums) why isn't it getting fixed!!! I'm being forced to
downgrade back to Windows XP and am being encouraged to move everything to
Gmail. Outlook is my last reason for staying with M$ Office instead of just
moving to OpenOffice for everything and that reason is now being shut off
because I get a lot of emails to BCC and it's simply not acceptable that I
can't view them.

-Peter

 

[BillWard]

The latest version of what?

Outlook. Unless you're specifically stating that the bcc problem only occurs
with OL2002/2003 and Vista and not when run under WinXP, which leads one to
question what Vista is doing differently and why.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Outlook. Unless you're specifically stating that the bcc problem only
occurs with OL2002/2003 and Vista and not when run under WinXP, which
leads one to question what Vista is doing differently and why.

I'm saying specifically that the problem occurs only on Vista and only with
Outlook 2003 (and, as you indicate, perhaps OL 2002). The problem does not
occur with Outlook 2007 on any platform and does not occur on Windows XP
with any Outlook version, or, at least, I've seen no reports to the
contrary.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Since it's a known problem (and has been known and extensively
complained about in MANY forums) why isn't it getting fixed!!!

What makes you think it's not?

 

[PLB]

What makes you think it's not?

The length of time that has passed since I started experiencing the problem
researching the issue. There were already many forums out there bemoaning
the problem at that time and I want to say that's been nearly 6 months ago
(exact time frame may be off, but this was at least July, I believe, and
probably June). By "getting fixed" I'm not referring to whether someone has
it on a list somewhere -- that doesn't help me. I'm referring to whether or
not my "Microsoft Update" is bringing the completed fix into my computer. A
delay of weeks is completely understandable -- programming is a
time-intensive process and this bug has to be prioritized among many others.
But how many months have to pass before it becomes legitimate to say "it
isn't getting fixed"?!

 

[Brian Tillman]

The length of time that has passed since I started experiencing the
problem researching the issue.

It can take a long time for Microsoft to generate and properly test a fix.
For non-security issues, I would expect it can take up to a year.

There were already many forums out there bemoaning
the problem at that time and I want to say that's been nearly 6 months ago
(exact time frame may be off, but this was at least July, I believe, and
probably June).

In no way does the posting of an issue in any forum consitute reporting an
issue to Microsoft. If you have a problem with a supported configuration
and you experience a problem, if you want to make sure Microsoft knows about
it, then it's up to you to open a support incident.

 

[PLB]

In no way does the posting of an issue in any forum consitute reporting an
issue to Microsoft. If you have a problem with a supported configuration
and you experience a problem, if you want to make sure Microsoft knows about
it, then it's up to you to open a support incident.

Hmmm... Is there somewhere that an interested party can open a support
incident to tell M$ about a problem (i.e., help) without having to pay $$$
for the privilege of helping? I was under the impression that if I wanted to
report a bug I was going to be paying a couple hundred bucks, but I would
love to be proved wrong in that. For a long time I have thought that this
policy (not having any way for bugs to be reported without the reportee
paying) was pretty short-sighted of M$ and I would be happy to be told that
either I've misunderstood all this time or else the policy has been changed...

-Peter

 

[Brian Tillman]

Hmmm... Is there somewhere that an interested party can open a
support incident to tell M$ about a problem (i.e., help) without
having to pay $$$ for the privilege of helping?

<https://support.microsoft.com/contactus2/emailcontact.aspx?scid=sw;en;1214&ws=support>
should work.

 

[RComfort]

<https://support.microsoft.com/contactus2/emailcontact.aspx?scid=sw;en;1214&ws=support>
should work.

 

[RComfort]

I tried logging the issue at the referenced web site and received an email
back from Microsoft this afternoon. For some reason they assumed I had an
oem'd copy of Outlook and suggested the following:

"Robert, if you prefer to work directly with a Microsoft Support
Professional, assisted support is available to you for a fee. You may contact
them at 800) 936 5700. Hours of operation are Monday - Friday 5:00 A.M. -
9:00 P.M., Saturday - Sunday 6:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M. Pacific Time."

Sigh...
Bob

 

[RComfort]

Okay, I tried escalating the issue to Microsoft support management and was
advised by email to call 800-936-5700. I made the call and the support
person said my options were (1) to call HP (my laptop is an HP), (2) pay $59
to report the problem or (3) use the self help support web site. I doubt
that HP can help and I've already been to the web site so maybe the only
option is to pay. I think I can come up with $59 but I hesitate to pay just