Hello,

When I sent a mail to a distribution list for example like this:

(In alphabetical order by name)
1. Amelie -
2. John -
3. Linda -
4. Susan -
5. Tom -

Mail reaches everybody without a problem. That is ok.

But when I look at my sent items (Or at the recepient) to this mail I see a
sort order in To column like this:

To: Tom ); Amelie ) ; John ); Linda
) ; Susan )

Why the last contact comes first and the others are in the true order??

Is this a by design or there a solution?

If there is an article about this problem please share... I have to prove
(if this is by design) to my boss


"Cüneyt DENÝZ" wrote in message
...
Hello,

When I sent a mail to a distribution list for example like this:

(In alphabetical order by name)
1. Amelie -
2. John -
3. Linda -
4. Susan -
5. Tom -

Mail reaches everybody without a problem. That is ok.

But when I look at my sent items (Or at the recepient) to this mail I see
a sort order in To column like this:

To: Tom ); Amelie ) ; John );
Linda ) ; Susan )

Why the last contact comes first and the others are in the true order??

Is this a by design or there a solution?

Cüneyt DENÝZ wrote:

If there is an article about this problem please share... I have to
prove (if this is by design) to my boss

I'm sure it's "by design", in that it's the result of how Outlook was
written. That doesn't mean the designers thought, "Let's have the last name
show up in the To field first." However, why in the world would anyone
care? It has no effect whatsoever on how the message is handled.
--
Brian Tillman

I also don't care but if your boss sees his name after a normal personnel in
your company , he begins to care so I have to explain this design in a
methodical way


"Brian Tillman" wrote in message
...
Cüneyt DENÝZ wrote:

If there is an article about this problem please share... I have to
prove (if this is by design) to my boss

I'm sure it's "by design", in that it's the result of how Outlook was
written. That doesn't mean the designers thought, "Let's have the last
name show up in the To field first." However, why in the world would
anyone care? It has no effect whatsoever on how the message is handled.
--
Brian Tillman

Then if you don't want to tell him that Outlook doesn't maintain names of recipients in any set order, you might want to put his name on the To line and the others in Cc.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx

"Cüneyt DENIZ" wrote in message ...
I also don't care but if your boss sees his name after a normal personnel in
your company , he begins to care so I have to explain this design in a
methodical way


"Brian Tillman" wrote in message
...
Cüneyt DENÝZ wrote:

If there is an article about this problem please share... I have to
prove (if this is by design) to my boss

I'm sure it's "by design", in that it's the result of how Outlook was
written. That doesn't mean the designers thought, "Let's have the last
name show up in the To field first." However, why in the world would
anyone care? It has no effect whatsoever on how the message is handled.
--
Brian Tillman

"Cüneyt DENIZ" wrote in message
...
I also don't care but if your boss sees his name after a normal
personnel in your company , he begins to care so I have to explain this
design in a methodical way


"Brian Tillman" wrote...

Cüneyt DENÝZ wrote:

If there is an article about this problem please share... I have to
prove (if this is by design) to my boss

I'm sure it's "by design", in that it's the result of how Outlook was
written. That doesn't mean the designers thought, "Let's have the
last name show up in the To field first." However, why in the world
would anyone care? It has no effect whatsoever on how the message is
handled.


Put the ego-maniacal puerile boss in the To header and all the other
recipients in the Cc header. Then he gets his own special place where
he is listed all by himself. What a loser if this is the kind of crap
he wastes his time on (and makes his employees waste their time on).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

I know this request is really weird. But if anyone read an article about
this problem and share with me I would be very appreciated.

Thanks for all...

"Vanguard" wrote in message
...
"Cüneyt DENIZ" wrote in message
...
I also don't care but if your boss sees his name after a normal personnel
in your company , he begins to care so I have to explain this design in a
methodical way


"Brian Tillman" wrote...

Cüneyt DENÝZ wrote:

If there is an article about this problem please share... I have to
prove (if this is by design) to my boss

I'm sure it's "by design", in that it's the result of how Outlook was
written. That doesn't mean the designers thought, "Let's have the last
name show up in the To field first." However, why in the world would
anyone care? It has no effect whatsoever on how the message is handled.


Put the ego-maniacal puerile boss in the To header and all the other
recipients in the Cc header. Then he gets his own special place where he
is listed all by himself. What a loser if this is the kind of crap he
wastes his time on (and makes his employees waste their time on).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

Cüneyt DENIZ wrote:

I know this request is really weird. But if anyone read an article
about this problem and share with me I would be very appreciated.

I'd be highly surprised if there is such an article.
--
Brian Tillman