We are using Outlook for email and Notes for applications. Since Notes 6.0 we have been able to send emails from notes to outlook as if we are using NotesMail. We are moving from 2000 to XP and upgrading to Outlook 2003. Now the email doclinks to Notes in Outlook don’t work.
Any advice would be appreciated. I would hate to go back to the clunky Mime code we used to use prior to 6.0.
Thanks for your help
Subject: Doclinks don’t work with Outlook 2003
Check out my blog. I just covered this topic without using a commercial application.
HTH
http://www.dangsite.com/dang/dailythought.nsf/plinks/PCOY-63ZTDR
Subject: It probably works beautifully if you have a place to run it
Joe, I’m sorry you feel offended by my mentioning of our product, CoexLinks, and I certainly wish they would nominate someone else for the spotlight, as I have requested on my blog almost a month ago. And I am glad that you bring up a manual solution in your blog. There are a number of ways to create NDL attachments, as I have described myself for years, and I hope many people are able to use it. But I would ask you, since you seem to have read many of my posts about our product, if you think that it might be just possible that there is some reason we bothered to write a product when the answer was so simple? That there might be some reason why companies would spend thousands of dollars to implement our solution when such an easy solution was available? I assure you, it is not because the customers are stupid or because we try to pull the wool over their eyes.
Anyway, there are good reasons, but I am not going to hijack your thread to discuss them. Anybody who wants to know can read Doug Finner’s posts about COEX, such as this one here, or can read through some of the posts where I talk about COEX and also talk about alternatives and why you would or would not need it.
Note: Updated Oct. 14, 2004 to reflect change of name from COEX! Links to CoexLinks
Subject: RE: It probably works beautifully if you have a place to run it
My blog simply states an opinion without any ads.
It is interesting how you are assuming I am offended. Your reponse (even more interesting) is with more commercializing and it is interesting to see how you pick this thread to make a comment (or present a commercial). You could have apologize outside the LDD threads – just an observation.
You have your views and good for you!!
I think, though, you are missing a bigger picture. As software matures it will change (evolve) to add more features. For example, the early days of the Lotus Notes administration client does not have all the bells and whistles that it does today. At that time 3rd party company made products to assist in ways the core product couldn’t. But when IBM gave some of the similar features within the R5 administration client, does that mean other software is not good? The answer is subjective and only each user can decide what is of value for their environment.
I am simply pointing out a more native way.
Subject: RE: It probably works beautifully if you have a place to run it
Your blog also states an opinion without any chance for comment or response. You explicitly mention my name and company, and make comments such as “I think it would be helpful if IBM had some criteria and enforcement of the forum use and etiquette when selecting a spotlight winner”. The Member’s Spotlight is picked by members who nominated me, knowing full well what my posts are like. I didn’t lobby for it, and wanted to point out in my blog that I was lobbying to be replaced.
You also say in your post above “You could have apologize outside the LDD threads – just an observation.”
Let me be clear, I am not apologizing. I do not in any way feel that my posts have consisted of excessive commercializing, but rather discuss alternatives, mention explicitly that manual solutions exist, and offer a solution for people whose needs aren’t met that way. I am sorry that you seem offended, not sorry for what I have done. As for continued commercializing, I didn’t provide a link to my product and didn’t go on about its features or why it was a better solution.
You posted “I just covered this topic without using a commercial application.” and pointed people not to a particular post but to your blog in general which contains the critique of my position in the Member’s Spotlight prominently. You refer to a commercial application, then send them to a site where you object to my commercial application by name. So, I was simply asking here whether you had considered that there might be good reasons for using the commercial application, because I have no chance of responding to the implied criticism there.
I repeat, I am glad that you suggest the solution you do. This forum is all about assisting people and providing solutions, which both of us do regularly. Native ways are often, although not always, better than commercial products. People should know how to create NDL attachments manually, as it is a great solution when they have the control to do so. Providing code to help them along is great.
But… Acting as if that code clearly and obviously removes the need for any commercial application, and one specifically mentioned in your blog that you send them to, is less great. Unless you are quite sure that you are really replacing the functionality of the commercial application, you would be better off saying that you have a free solution that might help. If you really feel it is important to point out that this can be used instead of a specific commercial application, keep the discussion here, where someone, whether it be me or one of our customers, can refute it.
Subject: Maybe some re-reading needs to be done
I never stated your employer on my blog. I just mention your name - yes.
I have updated the link from my reponse to my blog’s specific entry – I could have done this originally and I corret it now.
Not to over analyze, but your post did mention the word “sorry” – implicitly a synonym to another word. This counter response from you does state you “ask” but as I reread it, there was no asking if I check out said product. While there are posts not promoting a product, there are also responses where the topic was NDL specific and a product was inserted into the thread. There have been main posts where the product new release was also mentioned.
Lastly my blog is only showing how to answer the NDL question, I never stated that the code is the all around solution. It was implicitly impling it is a part of the solution.
Subject: *Thanks.
Subject: duplicate — oops eom
Subject: upgrade to office sp2 to fix notes:// link
You don’t need any 3rd party product to fix Outlook 2003 so that it recognizes notes:// and notes:/// links. Just upgrade to Office SP2. It contains a couple of fixes so that Outlook will recognize notes protocol links.
Subject: RE: Doclinks don’t work with Outlook 2003
Thanks. Do you have any idea why the doclinks stopped working with Outlook 2003? I have a lot of code I will have to modify if there isn’t a setting in Outlook I can change.
Subject: RE: Doclinks don’t work with Outlook 2003
IT would be good to know if you were sending email from Notes to Exchange via the connector or SMTP. But normally the doclinks exist for Notes environment only. Usually when an email leaves a Notes domain to another email system the doclink is not converted. I don’t know of an OUTLOOK setting to preserve them because OUTLOOK is simply reading the email.
I am curious to know if OUTLOOK is connecting to an Exchange server? Or is outlook connecting to domino via Domino Access for Microsoft Outlook?
If you could provide some more detail on the outlook end, I can try to answer as best as I can.