I'm not sure I understand your sentence "In this case it would be easier to
use a conversion of the time you want to test to UTC for the comparison."
The user-defined field we have "OurMileStone1DateTime" is imported from a
text file as is. So say it is "4:00 PM, Jan 22, 2010", that is 4:00 PM Jan
22, 2010 UTC.
Are you saying that if we Outlook's today(" function as seen below, and UTC
on the user's computer is Jan 22, then Outlook will be calculate to be True
even though the user's time in the bottom right on their computer screen may
say Jan 23 (e.g. if they are in New Zealand (GMT+13))?
"Ken Slovak - [MVP - Outlook]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> All Outlook date/time properties are stored internally in UTC and
> compensated to local time when retrieved using the Outlook object model.
> In this case it would be easier to use a conversion of the time you want
> to test to UTC for the comparison.
>
> What syntax are you looking for a reference for?
>
> --
> Ken Slovak
> [MVP - Outlook]
> http://www.slovaktech.com
> Author: Professional Programming Outlook 2007.
> Reminder Manager, Extended Reminders, Attachment Options.
> http://www.slovaktech.com/products.htm
>
>
> "Mark B" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> C#, VSTO, 2007
>>
>> Our Add-in programmatically creates a Search folder that filters on a
>> user-defined field called "OurMileStone1DateTime":
>>
>> today("http://schemas.microsoft.com/mapi/string/{00020329-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}/OurMileStone1DateTime")%)
>>
>> However OurMileStone1DateTime is a UTC Date/Time.
>>
>> I am trying to figure out how I can edit the SQL above to convert
>> OurMileStone1DateTime to the user's local Date/Time so the filter will
>> then compare that to the user's today date/time.
>>
>> Either that or maybe better, try for TodayUTC. In fact as I am writing
>> this post I think that may be better since it would involve less
>> calculation.
>>
>> Any thoughts on how to do this using the specified syntax (which I
>> haven't yet been able to find a comprehensive reference document for)?
>>
>>
>