82062 - Matching entry in local address book got higher priority

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 81695

(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Address Book & Contacts, defect)

Description

[yulian chang]

20010520 Wins build

check "Local Address Book' and "Directory Server" for address
autocompletion. Matching entry in local address book always gets
higher priority. no matter what was chosen from the autocompletion
box, after clicking (or hit Enter key) and move focus to the second
entry of address area in the Compose window, the first addressee
displays the matching entry in the local address book.

If more than one matching entries in local address book, it create
different problem...will do more investigation tomorrow...

Please alos refer to bug 81695

Comment 1

[Brian Nesse (gone)]

Identical results to those posted in bug 81695:

wfm on MacOS 2001052115. However, when I clicked in the 2nd address field and
started typing I got a popup that had a scrollbar, but no visible elements.

Comment 2

[Jeff Hooker]

Win98SE | N6.1 PR 0 (build id: 2001052204) | Prefs: Local (checked) | NSCP LDAP 
(checked) | Do not look as LDAP if in local (checked)

1. in compose window, type in "david m"
2. a list of matching entries from local and ldap direcories displays in the 
autocompletion box
3. click "[e-mail]" from ldap directory
4. "[e-mail]>" displayed in the first entry of address area in the compose 
window
5. click on the second entry of addressee
6. "[e-mail]" in the first entry becomes "David Mxxxr <[e-mail]> 
from local address book
7. in second entry of address area, type in "je"
8. blank entries display in the autocompletion box; scroll down menu appears but 
with blank / hidden entries
9. unable to see additional addresses from local or nscp ldap directories
10. addresses from Collected Addresses directory (seams to be the only directory 
to work at this point) will autocomplete within the address entry; but the 
scroll down menu still appears with blank / hidden entries

Comment 3

[Srilatha Moturi]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 81695 ***

Comment 4

[yulian chang]

Verify dup