I don't bother following any links like that or downloading people's
code they put in attachments to their posts. It takes too much time
and it's rude on the part of the people that do that to assume that
someone will research something for them without having the courtesy
to state what the problem is in their post. Like everyone else here
I'm posting as a volunteer on my own limited time.
I would have expected someone as knowledgeable as you to post the link
in your message and say "this link is broken and points nowhere, can
someone please report this to MS" instead of assuming that people
would just follow the links and guess what your intention was.
--
Ken Slovak
[MVP - Outlook]
http://www.slovaktech.com
Lead Author, Professional Outlook 2000 Programming, Wrox Press
Lead Author, Beginning VB 6 Application Development, Wrox Press
Attachment Options
http://www.slovaktech.com/attachmentoptions.htm
Extended Reminders
http://www.slovaktech.com/extendedreminders.htm
Ken you probably responded to me right off the cuff similarly as I did
with you when I first read your critcism. I have thought over what
you said. I decided well let me see if I wasn't George Hester and I
saw this article what might I do? Well I might just click his first
link. If I had done that I would have seen that George Hester is all
wet. His first link does NOT say "OL2002: Programming with EntryIDs
and StoreIDs." That would have taken what 30 secs? Then I would have
said to myself, "What is George Hester trying to say, that article
says, "SBS: Error Message Occurs When You Try to Install a Client
Computer on an SBS Network[?]" Then I'd ask myself, "Where is he
getting that?" Oh yeah he did say where. So I would try his second
link. And sure enough if I did a search on "293153" w/o the quotes
within that page I would find out where he is getting that. I believe
on a dial-up connection that would probably take 2 mins max. Less
then the length of time it takes to thoughtfully answer any question
here and explain the answer.
If you disagree with my method of pointing out incorrect documentation
at Microsoft I accept that. But the documentation is still wrong.