G
Guest
I recently noticed in Outlook 2000 that if you respond to a meeting request
but choose to not send a response to the meeting organizer, your response
does not update in the meeting attendee status. Until I discovered this
"feature", I would generally not send a response when I recognized that I was
one of many (>25) in a distribution list. I thought I was being polite to
the sender by not cluttering their mail box with yet another meeting
response. I assumed though, that my status for the meeting would be updated.
What value is there for the sender to request a meeting but allow the
requestee to not provide a response. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that I am
interested in your response to a meeting request I made? The way it is setup
in 2000 leaves it open to miscommunication, redundant communication and
wasted effort trying to track down who is coming and not coming to a meeting
request. I think there is value in not sending a response to a persons inbox
but I think it is mandatory to update the status in the meeting request.
What do you think?
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...7604d&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.calendaring
but choose to not send a response to the meeting organizer, your response
does not update in the meeting attendee status. Until I discovered this
"feature", I would generally not send a response when I recognized that I was
one of many (>25) in a distribution list. I thought I was being polite to
the sender by not cluttering their mail box with yet another meeting
response. I assumed though, that my status for the meeting would be updated.
What value is there for the sender to request a meeting but allow the
requestee to not provide a response. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that I am
interested in your response to a meeting request I made? The way it is setup
in 2000 leaves it open to miscommunication, redundant communication and
wasted effort trying to track down who is coming and not coming to a meeting
request. I think there is value in not sending a response to a persons inbox
but I think it is mandatory to update the status in the meeting request.
What do you think?
----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...7604d&dg=microsoft.public.outlook.calendaring