how do I fix my address book so that it inserts the correct email address in the "To:" space?
I can't locate addresses in my Address Book because of a separate TBird problem that's apparently being solved by the engineering boffins, but I also have this unrelated Address Book problem. When I start typing an email address in the "To:" slot, Thunderbird completes the address since it can see it in the Address Book (but I can't). Then it jumbles the address and inserts it into the To: field. But, since the address is jumbled, it doesn't work. I have no idea that the address is jumbled. It looks something like this when Thunderbird is finished with it: "TestPerson@gmail.comtestperson@gmail.com"
Deleting and restoring the profile makes no difference, also exporting/importing the contents of the Address Book as an .ldif file makes no difference. I've asked this question before, but got no help, so I'm trying again.
चुने गए समाधान
It means that a new type of autocomplete was introduced in the last version, but was inadequately tested, and so several other previously hidden bugs emerged. You can read the discussion (and add your vote for its importance) here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=970456
संदर्भ में यह जवाब पढ़ें 👍 0All Replies (6)
Hi, Create a new profile
- Add your Mail Accounts (Don't Import or Restore from Old Profile)
- Export the Address Book and Import to the New Profile.
- Compose an email and Give a try.
iamjayakumars द्वारा सम्पादित
Use the Contacts sidebar (F9 in the Composition window) until the autocomplete bugs are resolved. Double-click a contact in the sidebar, use the right-click menu, or the 'Add to' buttons.
Thanks, iamjayakumars. I thought I wrote that I had done all that. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you to understand.
Your suggestion looks promising. This is tending towards an explanation, but I'm puzzled by "until the autocomplete bugs are resolved". What does that mean?
चयनित समाधान
It means that a new type of autocomplete was introduced in the last version, but was inadequately tested, and so several other previously hidden bugs emerged. You can read the discussion (and add your vote for its importance) here:
Thanks, sfhowes. That explains a lot. I had always assumed that it was just a horribly programmed function that produced inexplicable results - and it turns out that it was designed that way!