OUTLOOK 2002: Problems with Rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Corbett
  • Start date Start date
J

John Corbett

Are there known quirks/problems with the mailing routing RULES mechanism?

Recently I observed tht all mail items from specific users (I could see them
at tthe ISP via a WebMail service) which were not sucessfully delivered to
the client. Once I turned off the RULES triggered by the email IDs, all
subesequent emails were sucessfully delivered. In all cases, the RULES did
work at one time.

Any suggestion or direction gratefully appreciated.

John
(e-mail address removed)
 
John Corbett said:
Recently I observed tht all mail items from specific users (I could
see them at tthe ISP via a WebMail service) which were not
sucessfully delivered to the client. Once I turned off the RULES
triggered by the email IDs, all subesequent emails were sucessfully
delivered. In all cases, the RULES did work at one time.
Click to expand...

Try enabling the rules one at a time to see if you can tell which one is
causing the problem. There is no rule in Outlook that will cause a message
to remain on the server while others are downloaded.
 
By poking arround it seems like the folder that is the target of the MOVE TO
portion of the rule becomes undefined thus, when OUTLOOK actions the rule,
it moves the item into the proverbial bit-bucket. I do not understand how
the rule could become corrupt.

John
 
Is there an Exchange server involved? When we migrated from Exchange 5.5 to
2000, we had a lot of problems with client-side rules. The only answer
seemed to delete them and create new rules. We have recently migrated to
Exchange 2003 and so far all the rules that were installed fresh in 2000
have continued to work.
 
No Exchange server; rather, a Bell operated POP server.

I believe that there are 2 problems: 1) Something causes a well-formed rule
to become corrupt; and 2) Ineffective OUTLOOK when dealing with a rule that
has become corrupt.

It would be nice to be able to submit and receive a timely fix; but, oh well
!

John
 
Back
Top