Is it safe to say that the first part of the email ID of Broadcom employees is the same as before and just ca.com was changed to broadcom.com?
Is it safe to say that the first part of the email ID of Broadcom employees is the same as before and just ca.com was changed to broadcom.com?
Hi Phil
In general, that principle is adhered to.
However, consider the case of John.Doe@ca.com when there is already a John Doe working at Broadcom with email address John.Doe@broadcom.com. There has to be a suffix or adornment in the name somewhere to differentiate between the two - I have seen a couple of different adornments and so I'm not sure of the rules on how they are generated.
All mail to John.Doe@ca.com is forwarded to the new Broadcom equivalent, so what I have done where needed is to use the old CA mail and ask…
HTH,
Adrian
Mine was always steve.harvey@ca.com, which for 7 years I never questioned, although I was surprised it was never set at stephen.harvey@ca.com , but hey. It has now gone to steve-SH.harvey@broadcom.com, which I find rather clunky!
Hi Phil
In general, that principle is adhered to.
However, consider the case of John.Doe@ca.com when there is already a John Doe working at Broadcom with email address John.Doe@broadcom.com. There has to be a suffix or adornment in the name somewhere to differentiate between the two - I have seen a couple of different adornments and so I'm not sure of the rules on how they are generated.
All mail to John.Doe@ca.com is forwarded to the new Broadcom equivalent, so what I have done where needed is to use the old CA mail and ask…
HTH,
Adrian