Stting up Outlook 2003 With XP

[Guest]

I currenlty have 2 PC's. 1 is running Windows ME with outlook express 6.0 and
the other is Windows XP Media Centre with Outlook 2003.

On Express 6.0 we have 2 folders set up 1 which is Inbox where my partners
e-mails are delivered to and 1 where my e-mails are delivered to. The way it
is set up is mail which starts Fredster@ comes to my inbox & mail that starts
slippers@ delivers to her folder.

Now we have started using Outlook 2003 in our new PC, I am struggling to set
up the e-mails to deliver to the correct logon.
If I am on my logon and go onto Outlook 2003 messages for me and my partner
are delivered to my inbox and same when we go onto her logon.

I have gone into Tools / E-Mail Accounts / View or change existing e-mail
accounts and selected next. This shows our e-mail account. I have then
selected Change. This shows our server details and user details. In the user
details for my address it shows Fredster@ with the rest of the e-mail address
and in her's when on her XP logon doing the same it shows slippers@ and the
rest of her e-mail address.

Just to point out our server is identical our logon information is identical
and our e-mail address is identical except the prefix.

What am I doing wrong and how do I rectify it.

 

[DL]

If you wish to receive both mail, at the same time, same login, you need to
create a subfolder off the inbox.
Then create a rule to move msgs from eg slippers@ to this new folder.
If you wish to have only the one mail account delivered, then you need to
set up OL Profiles. See OL Help

 

[Brian Tillman]

If you wish to receive both mail, at the same time, same login, you
need to create a subfolder off the inbox.

No, he DOESN'T "need to" create a subfolder. It *can* be a subfolder, but
there's nothing that *requires* it to be.

 

[DL]

splitting hairs

No, he DOESN'T "need to" create a subfolder. It *can* be a subfolder, but
there's nothing that *requires* it to be.

 

[Brian Tillman]

splitting hairs

Words have meanings. When you subvert those meanings you reduce the
likelyhood of correct communication.

 

[DL]

sorry
I didnt mean to get in the way of your ego.
I assume this is the case as you could'nt be bothered to post the
deffinative answer, according to she