Fixlist and other threads like http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/nd85forum.nsf/5f27803bba85d8e285256bf10054620d/337159952c7ce9b98525764e00543a4csay this bug is fixed, but it it isn’t really. Our users have their ADDR821 name in the Location doc (like short.name@company.com ) and their name is correctly excluded from Reply to All if the sender used exactly that name. If the sender included ADDR822PHRASE (like
“Common Name” short.name@company.com ) in the name they sent to then this name is incorrectly included in Reply to All. In prior versions the Notes client correctly excluded the longer form whenever the InternetAddress field from the Location doc WAS A SUBSTRING of the format used by the sender.
Now the comparison between sender’s format and local InternetAddress appears to require an EXACT match; there for our user have to put the form into their Location field that corresponds to the majority of what they receive and manualy deal with the rest.
Subject: Should be fixed in 8.5.2
In 8.5.2 we match either the 821 or 822 address. Please try either the Beta CD2 or CD3 of 8.5.2 to see if that resolves your problem.
Thanks You
Subject: I am running 8.5.3CD4 and I still am having the issue (nt)
Subject: Seems to be working for me but had to upgrade your template design
Using the document you sent me and the internet address: “ppassin@adb.org” the issue appears to be fixed for me in 8.5.2 and 8.5.3. I did have to upgrade the template design of the mail file you sent me since it was 8.5.1 and it was not working for this case in 8.5.1. The case being comparing an 821 to an 822 address.
Subject: For the benefits of others the Reply To All logic is
inside Script Library “Common”, MEMOReplyToAll procedure. Just copy and paste it if you can’t upgrade the entire template.
Subject: that bug is fixed in 8.5.1
Subject: Doesn’t seem to be fixed
Hi Debbie, thank you for responding. We have a lot of users running 8.5.1 FP1 who will disagree.Their name is only excluded from Reply to All when there is an exact match between the InternetAddress field in their location doc and the format the sender used.
May I direct your attention to this other posting describing results similar to ours?
http://www-10.lotus.com/ldd/nd85forum.nsf/5f27803bba85d8e285256bf10054620d/c5d0eb6a1351e06e8525766b003238cd
Subject: Thanks; will pass this info. to the Developer