Display original recipient in Outlook

By bill.herde ·
We are running SBS 2003, clients are on Office XP or 2003. The receptionist has many additional smtp addresses on her mailbox. i.e. HR, info, Sales etc. She is supposed to sort all the general incoming mail and forward to the correct person. Problem is all email that lands in her mailbox diplays as sent to "reception". Examining the header reveals it was sent to "". Is there a way to have exchange/outlook display the actual recipient address to help her be more effeicant sorting?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

Install K9 a Spam Filter available here

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Display original recipien ...

link it to all the mail accounts and then when she's sorting the Mail you will get the full headers. Maybe not the cleanest install/solution but it works. Failing that you could always use a Mail Sorting Program like Apache or Exchange to do the same job.


Collapse -

Exchange is part of the system already.

by bill.herde In reply to Install K9 a Spam Filter ...

and the user logs in to a terminal server session. Adding another stand alone package could impact other users on the terminal server. It would seem there should be a way to have exchange/outlook do this, but I don't know where to look.

Collapse -

Well if you already have exchange it's time to set it up properly

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Exchange is part of the s ...

With everything being forwarded to one person for distribution across the LAN this is costing the business far more money that it should be and the entire system isn't setup correctly.

As you already have a Mail Exchange program why not make it work as you have paid for it so why are you failing to use it's capabilities?

When you originally posted the question I thought that the server had just been placed in and that there was no decent support system which you clearly have so why is this still occurring?

All you need do is setup mailboxes for the required departments/People advise the suppliers of the new E-Mail addresses and let it go from there. Alternatively as the receptionist is collecting E-Mail from several Mail Boxes why not redirect them to the intended recipient and save the double handling and wasted time? If everything is already in place it should only take a few minutes for a part way decent tech to set up correctly.


Collapse -


by bill.herde In reply to Well if you already have ...

Adding additional mailboxes requires additional user logins, not a problem, Have receptionist open additional mailboxes with outlook is also not a problem. Receptionist complains that having so many mailboxes in outlook is confusing (currently and she forgets to check them all. These are sales leads and receptioninst has responsibility of parsing them to sales people, but not always to the same one. Soooo, redirect mail from recipient A to Receptionist, no problem, BUT once it lands in her mailbox, even though it was recieved for mailbox A and "send a copy to" by exchange, the displayed "sent to" address shows as her mailbox.

Perhaps not as simple as it may have appeared on the surface... and retraining the receptionist is not an option.

Collapse -

Talk about being between

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Understood

A Rock & a Hard place.

Yup I understand what you are attempting to do and it's not going to be easy as you don't have that option in Outlook.

Not an easy position to be in and even worse if the current Receptionist walks. But I bet that you are catching Hell from the Sales Department for not getting the e-mail forwarded on.

Talk about a No Win Situation.

I'm not even sure that a little utility like K9 would be of much use in this case but if that's your only option it may be worth a try on test box.


Collapse -

Rules forwarding vs. moving a copy

by curlergirl In reply to Display original recipien ...

There are several ways to do this. It sounds to me as though you (or she) must have set up a rule to FORWARD the message to her mailbox rather than either of the alternatives. Either of these alternatives will send a copy of the message to her mailbox but retain the original "to" information:

(a) Set up a rule for the mailbox where the message originates. The action that the rule performs needs to be: "move a copy of the message" to her mailbox, NOT "forward to people or distribution list." This will be a client-side only rule so it will only operate when she has Outlook open.


(b) If the original recipients are set up as regular users, you can use Active Directory to set up an alternate recipient. Go to the properties of the AD Users account, and on the Exchange General tab, under the Delivery Options, you can set it to forward the email for that recipient to another mailbox. This "Forward" will also retain the original "to" information. This is on the server-side, so it will operate at all times, regardless of whether she has Outlook open or not.

Hope this helps!

[edited to add]

P.S. Option (b) won't work if the original recipients are set up as contacts rather than regular users.

Collapse -

It will have to do

by bill.herde In reply to Rules forwarding vs. movi ...

The active directory route is the way I set it up the first time. Madam wwhinnner likes to sort by date recieved in Outlook which will display the 'From' address in the view, but she has to either open the message or sort by 'To' to quickly see where it was sent. "But then they aren't in date order anymore!" Had a talk with the Boss today regarding how much is it worth to eliminate this terrible inconvenience. I am unable to come up with a way to customize the Outlook view to her specifications. He is going to handle it.

After 30 years of this job you would think I would get used to this...... Thanks for the inputs.

Collapse -

Madam whiner indeed

by curlergirl In reply to It will have to do

With all the options for customizing the display in Outlook, if you can't find one to satisfy her, I think she's earned the title of "Madam Beeatch" rather than "Madam Whiner" ;-)

I actually misunderstood your original post - I thought it wasn't displaying the original recipient at all, not that it was just a matter of not being able to satisfy a user's unrealistic demands.

Related Discussions

Related Forums