If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: The URL that I gave to Microsoft's article didn't help you to figure out to compact? No, it didn't. You did not find the Compact Now option? Looks like the same place noted at: https://www.msoutlook.info/question/...ow-pst-and-ost https://www.thewindowsclub.com/compa...x-size-outlook https://www.slipstick.com/outlook/co...close-outlook/ I've added the sub-key and DWORD that recommends. Still no joy; the only difference is that now, whenever starting Outlook, it asks me to select my profile, from the drop-down list of one. From the name of the registry key and data name, might be it only works to compact a PST file (used for POP accounts) on Outlook's exit. IMAP accounts use an OST file. In an elevated command shell, enter: reg query HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Office\16.0\Outlook\PST /v "PSTNullFreeOnClose" The double-quotes may not be needed; however, so many data items have spaces in their names that I use double-quotes by habit. If the data item was defined under the 16.0\Outlook\PST node (for Outlook 365), the query would return it in the output, and show a data type of REG_DWORD. If the data item isn't in the queried location, you see "ERROR: ... unable to find ...", so it wasn't created in the correct spot in the registry. Since the registry is edited in the files, but a memory copy is loaded when Windows starts and it is the memory copy that programs use via the registry API, I usually hit F5 (refresh) after editing the registry to get the file copies loaded into the memory copy. If I want to edit more in the registry, I hit F5 after every edit to refresh the registry, so any other keys or data items that I'm looking will also reflect the change, or reflect that I deleted an entry. Or I restart Windows to get it to load the file copy into memory. Editing the file copy won't affect programs that are reading from the memory copy. Since registry edit is under the HKCU hive, you could just logout and login to your Windows account instead of restarting Windows. regedit.exe does not issue an F5 (refresh) after editing a registry key (change name, delete) or data item (change name, delete) or its value. You could edit it under the HKCU hive but the old stuff is still listed under HKU, until you refresh or reload. As for asking which profile to load when Outlook starts, looks like no profile was selected as the default. Users that maintain multiple profiles sometimes want that prompt, so they can pick which one to use during a session of Outlook. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...7-8313b431803c https://support.microsoft.com/en-ie/...5-3e26ea475d25 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 14:45:30, VanguardLH wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: VanguardLH wrote: The URL that I gave to Microsoft's article didn't help you to figure out to compact? No, it didn't. You did not find the Compact Now option? Looks like the same place noted at: https://www.msoutlook.info/question/...ow-pst-and-ost https://www.thewindowsclub.com/compa...x-size-outlook https://www.slipstick.com/outlook/co...the-data-file- when-you-close-outlook/ I've added the sub-key and DWORD that recommends. Still no joy; the only difference is that now, whenever starting Outlook, it asks me to select my profile, from the drop-down list of one. From the name of the registry key and data name, might be it only works to compact a PST file (used for POP accounts) on Outlook's exit. IMAP accounts use an OST file. The article did say it worked for both PST and OST files. [] As for asking which profile to load when Outlook starts, looks like no It's not doing that _every_ time. I thought it had stopped asking, but on restarting the laptop after replacing the screen after falling on it (they don't make laptops like they used to!), it asked again. Maybe it's only after a PC reset. profile was selected as the default. Users that maintain multiple profiles sometimes want that prompt, so they can pick which one to use during a session of Outlook. (You'd think it'd know not to bother when the drop-down list only has one in it though!) [] Anyway, further wrinkles! Someone suggest I saved the message as a file ("exported" it). The only way I could see - I couldn't see a "save" or "export" option - was to "copy" it (that option _is_ there), and then "paste" it in explorer. It was an email that showed as about 150K, containing an about 100K extension. Saving it did indeed produce an about 150K file; removing the attachment and then saving it, produced a less than 50K file. But, just for curiosity, I tried dragging the 150K file (i. e. "saved" _with_ the extension) back into the Inbox - and it appeared as an email now of about 120K! Yes, an intermediate size. I give up; it's not a problem (parish council business rarely involves video files, so I'll just let the various files pile up, or not - it's IMAP, so they might not even be on the laptop at all anyway: I've given up caring). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech; they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader), in RT 6-12 July 2013 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:11:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: On Sun, 19 Jul 2020 at 14:45:30, VanguardLH wrote: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: VanguardLH wrote: The URL that I gave to Microsoft's article didn't help you to figure out to compact? No, it didn't. You did not find the Compact Now option? Looks like the same place noted at: https://www.msoutlook.info/question/...ow-pst-and-ost https://www.thewindowsclub.com/compa...x-size-outlook https://www.slipstick.com/outlook/co...the-data-file- when-you-close-outlook/ I've added the sub-key and DWORD that recommends. Still no joy; the only difference is that now, whenever starting Outlook, it asks me to select my profile, from the drop-down list of one. From the name of the registry key and data name, might be it only works to compact a PST file (used for POP accounts) on Outlook's exit. IMAP accounts use an OST file. The article did say it worked for both PST and OST files. [] As for asking which profile to load when Outlook starts, looks like no It's not doing that _every_ time. I thought it had stopped asking, but on restarting the laptop after replacing the screen after falling on it (they don't make laptops like they used to!), it asked again. Maybe it's only after a PC reset. profile was selected as the default. Users that maintain multiple profiles sometimes want that prompt, so they can pick which one to use during a session of Outlook. (You'd think it'd know not to bother when the drop-down list only has one in it though!) [] Anyway, further wrinkles! Someone suggest I saved the message as a file ("exported" it). The only way I could see - I couldn't see a "save" or "export" option - was to "copy" it (that option _is_ there), and then "paste" it in explorer. File menu, then Save As. You have several format options there. I see that you've stopped caring, though. :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:31:33, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:11:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Anyway, further wrinkles! Someone suggest I saved the message as a file ("exported" it). The only way I could see - I couldn't see a "save" or "export" option - was to "copy" it (that option _is_ there), and then "paste" it in explorer. File menu, then Save As. You have several format options there. I see that you've stopped caring, though. :-) Yes, File | Save As is more or less a "meme" in Windows softwares. But in Office 365, clicking on the top left menu heading - I think it _is_ "File" - completely replaces the normal screen, taking you into a sort of vaguely control-panel-like thing where you can change all sorts of things. (Or does in Windows 10, anyway.) I was at a loss what had happened the first few times I did it; there's a left-pointing arrow in a circle near the top left, that (in Outlook, anyway - I've not really played with the other bits of Office 365) takes you back to the normal Outlook (or most other email software) three-pane screen (list of folders, list of emails, preview pane). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech; they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader), in RT 6-12 July 2013 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:45:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:31:33, Char Jackson wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 21:11:27 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] Anyway, further wrinkles! Someone suggest I saved the message as a file ("exported" it). The only way I could see - I couldn't see a "save" or "export" option - was to "copy" it (that option _is_ there), and then "paste" it in explorer. File menu, then Save As. You have several format options there. I see that you've stopped caring, though. :-) Yes, File | Save As is more or less a "meme" in Windows softwares. But in Office 365, clicking on the top left menu heading - I think it _is_ "File" - completely replaces the normal screen, taking you into a sort of vaguely control-panel-like thing where you can change all sorts of things. (Or does in Windows 10, anyway.) I was at a loss what had happened the first few times I did it; there's a left-pointing arrow in a circle near the top left, that (in Outlook, anyway - I've not really played with the other bits of Office 365) takes you back to the normal Outlook (or most other email software) three-pane screen (list of folders, list of emails, preview pane). Yes, that's normal for Office applications. It's been a long time and I don't remember if it threw me at the time, but it probably did. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
Anyway, further wrinkles! Someone suggest I saved the message as a file ("exported" it). The only way I could see - I couldn't see a "save" or "export" option - was to "copy" it (that option _is_ there), and then "paste" it in explorer. It was an email that showed as about 150K, containing an about 100K extension. Saving it did indeed produce an about 150K file; removing the attachment and then saving it, produced a less than 50K file. But, just for curiosity, I tried dragging the 150K file (i. e. "saved" _with_ the extension) back into the Inbox - and it appeared as an email now of about 120K! Yes, an intermediate size. Binary files are encoded into a long text string in a MIME section of the e-mail. *ALL* e-mails get sent as text, including binary attachments. The encoding to text enlarges the message by about 137%, or more, of its original size. You might add an 85K binary attachment (to a message of just a few bytes long), but the encoding into text will enlarge it to, say, 120K for a very long text string that gets placed into a MIME section within the body of the message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_...chnical_detail The polite way of sending HTML-formatted e-mails is to included a text-only section (separately or in a text/plain MIME part) along with the HTML version (in a text/html MIME part). That is, for HTML e-mails, there should be two copies of the message. That way, recipients using HTML-capable e-mail clients can read your message, but so can recipients using text-only e-mail clients. Of course, if you don't use HTML and send as text only, only 1 copy of the message is in the e-mail. I don't have a copy of Outlook 2016/2019 to see what gets imported when dragging in a message file that has both text/plain and text/html MIME parts. As I recall, export was on the entire message store when attempting such from the main GUI window. Some options are not available until you /open/ the message. While the Preview pane does have the message open, you need to double-click on a message to open in its own new window. Then the toolbars or menues have additions options. I think that's you got to the Edit Message option, so maybe there's a Save or Export option on just the opened message. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 18:36:11, VanguardLH wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: Anyway, further wrinkles! Someone suggest I saved the message as a file ("exported" it). The only way I could see - I couldn't see a "save" or "export" option - was to "copy" it (that option _is_ there), and then "paste" it in explorer. It was an email that showed as about 150K, containing an about 100K extension. Saving it did indeed produce an about 150K file; removing the attachment and then saving it, produced a less than 50K file. It was an email where (as is usual these days) the text was in all sorts of fonts etc.; as Outlook doesn't make it easy to tell, I don't know if it was a two-part email (see below). The _nominal_ attachment - i. e. the one that Outlook admitted was there - was a PDF. But, just for curiosity, I tried dragging the 150K file (i. e. "saved" _with_ the extension) back into the Inbox - and it appeared as an email now of about 120K! Yes, an intermediate size. Binary files are encoded into a long text string in a MIME section of the e-mail. *ALL* e-mails get sent as text, including binary attachments. The encoding to text enlarges the message by about 137%, or more, of its original size. You might add an 85K binary attachment (to a message of just a few bytes long), but the encoding into text will enlarge it to, say, 120K for a very long text string that gets placed into a MIME section within the body of the message. I know all that: I remember when UUcode was the default, and MIME a novelty! (MIME is now the default, and many modern email prog.s don't even know how to decode UUcode.) [] The polite way of sending HTML-formatted e-mails is to included a text-only section (separately or in a text/plain MIME part) along with the HTML version (in a text/html MIME part). That is, for HTML e-mails, there should be two copies of the message. That way, recipients using Agreed. HTML-capable e-mail clients can read your message, but so can recipients using text-only e-mail clients. Of course, if you don't use HTML and (My client provides buttons so I can choose which to read; I usually read the plain-text one.) Some companies have email software that still sends both parts, but the users at that company are not aware of that fact. And, a recent wrinkle has been that they can break, such that the plain text part is _not_ the same text as the HTML part; I had one within the last day, from a large company, saying they'd extended their offer - to April 2020 (it is now late July 2020); it was only when I looked at the HTML part that I found a mention of August. (I only looked because I've seen this before.) send as text only, only 1 copy of the message is in the e-mail. I don't have a copy of Outlook 2016/2019 to see what gets imported when dragging in a message file that has both text/plain and text/html MIME parts. Just seemed odd that when I copied the email from Outlook to an Explorer window, then dragged it back, it was (or rather showed in Explorer as) slightly smaller. I suppose it _could_ have lost the plain text part, if there was one, keeping the HTML part and the (PDF) attachment. As I recall, export was on the entire message store when attempting such from the main GUI window. Some options are not available until you /open/ the message. While the Preview pane does have the message open, you need to double-click on a message to open in its own new window. Then the toolbars or menues have additions options. I think that's you got to the Edit Message option, so maybe there's a Save or Export option on just the opened message. True, I don't think I tried from an open message window. Certainly from the default message list pane, the only option I could see was "save". But then I use Outlook with distaste - it's what's on the provided laptop and what my fellow councillors use, so it's not worth fighting it, but it certainly wouldn't be my choice of email client. (Not sure what would - probably a middling version of Thunderbird.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not the primary use of the computer. - VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
It was an email where (as is usual these days) the text was in all sorts of fonts etc.; as Outlook doesn't make it easy to tell, I don't know if it was a two-part email (see below). The _nominal_ attachment - i. e. the one that Outlook admitted was there - was a PDF. As I recall, Outlook stores the messages in its database. The problem is that the e-mail's original raw content is stored in the message store aka database, and no longer available in its original format. I used an extension called PocketKnife Peek that might've let me see the raw content, but it's been too long to remember. In any case, I could still go to my e-mail client using the provider's webmail client, and they had a View Source or similar function to let me see the raw content (all the text in the e-mail: headers, space line delimiter, all the message as text along with any MIME parts). Some companies have email software that still sends both parts, but the users at that company are not aware of that fact. And, a recent wrinkle has been that they can break, such that the plain text part is _not_ the same text as the HTML part; I had one within the last day, from a large company, saying they'd extended their offer - to April 2020 (it is now late July 2020); it was only when I looked at the HTML part that I found a mention of August. (I only looked because I've seen this before.) Even Microsoft was at fault when their Hotmail service, when using their webmail client, only included the HTML MIME part, and users had no option there to send as plain-text only. I, and several others, complained about their webmail client not including both the text and HTML MIME parts. Took over a year before they fixed it. I haven't tested it lately to see if they reverted to their old way since I rarely use webmail clients to send e-mails. Alas, Outlook 2003 switched to using a stub of Word. They dumped their prior editor and moved to winword.exe (a stripped down or stub portion). This broke some old features: GIFs were no longer animated, Flash objects shows as a red "X", and HTML accessibility support got broken. Supposedly those were due to security concerns. An animated GIF (rather than just showing the first frame) was a security risk? The Word stub was included with Outlook, so you didn't have to install Word to have Outlook use the Word stub. The result is Outlook pukes a bunch of Word-based directives into the HTML part when sending a message. Only Word knows what the directives mean. The result is HTML-formatted e-mails using Outlook end up with a bunch of garbage that no other e-mail client will know how to use. You get an e-mail from a sender using Outlook, look at the raw content, and wonder "What the **** are all these Word-specific directives as comment blocks in the HTML MIME part that only Word recognizes. https://stackoverflow.design/email/base/mso/ https://medium.com/tealmedia/creatin...ls-e0e4866c3f8 As I recall, there were also MSO tags that weren't inside of comment blocks. The HTML message had all this MSO crap that was meaningless to all e-mail clients except Outlook. I faintly recall you could go into Word's options to disable some of this MSO crap, but it's been too long to remember if editing Word's options (if installed) would effect the Word stub that Outlook uses. This is aking to Outlook attaching a winmail.dat file onto an e-mail to carry along the Word-specific formatting or definitions, so recipients would wonder what the **** was this winmail.dat attachment that meant nothing to their e-mail client. https://www.fastmetrics.com/support/...mail-dat-file/ https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...ges-in-outlook Like Google flaunting their size to screw with the POP and IMAP protocols (why I call them gPOP and gIMAP), Microsoft figured it could play with e-mail, HTML, and MIME however they want because of their domination in the e-mail client market, especially for businesses. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 08:38:35, VanguardLH wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: It was an email where (as is usual these days) the text was in all sorts of fonts etc.; as Outlook doesn't make it easy to tell, I don't know if it was a two-part email (see below). The _nominal_ attachment - i. e. the one that Outlook admitted was there - was a PDF. As I recall, Outlook stores the messages in its database. The problem is that the e-mail's original raw content is stored in the message store aka database, and no longer available in its original format. I used an extension called PocketKnife Peek that might've let me see the raw content, but it's been too long to remember. In any case, I could still go to my e-mail client using the provider's webmail client, and they had a View Source or similar function to let me see the raw content (all the text in the e-mail: headers, space line delimiter, all the message as text along with any MIME parts). My/this email client (Turnpike) has an Export function, and also a view raw function (same effect other than it doesn't involve a filename). Some companies have email software that still sends both parts, but the users at that company are not aware of that fact. And, a recent wrinkle has been that they can break, such that the plain text part is _not_ the same text as the HTML part; I had one within the last day, from a large company, saying they'd extended their offer - to April 2020 (it is now late July 2020); it was only when I looked at the HTML part that I found a mention of August. (I only looked because I've seen this before.) Even Microsoft was at fault when their Hotmail service, when using their webmail client, only included the HTML MIME part, and users had no option there to send as plain-text only. I, and several others, complained about their webmail client not including both the text and HTML MIME parts. Took over a year before they fixed it. I haven't I'm surprised they did at all. tested it lately to see if they reverted to their old way since I rarely use webmail clients to send e-mails. Alas, Outlook 2003 switched to using a stub of Word. They dumped their prior editor and moved to winword.exe (a stripped down or stub portion). This broke some old features: GIFs were no longer animated, Flash objects shows as a red "X", and HTML accessibility support got broken. Supposedly those were due to security concerns. An animated GIF (rather than just showing the first frame) was a security risk? The Word stub was included with Outlook, so you didn't have to install Word to have Outlook use the Word stub. I wouldn't mind if it degraded gracefully/was backwards compatible. But as you've discovered: The result is Outlook pukes a bunch of Word-based directives into the HTML part when sending a message. Only Word knows what the directives mean. The result is HTML-formatted e-mails using Outlook end up with a bunch of garbage that no other e-mail client will know how to use. You get an e-mail from a sender using Outlook, look at the raw content, and wonder "What the **** are all these Word-specific directives as comment blocks in the HTML MIME part that only Word recognizes. [] As I recall, there were also MSO tags that weren't inside of comment blocks. The HTML message had all this MSO crap that was meaningless to all e-mail clients except Outlook. I faintly recall you could go into [] Like Google flaunting their size to screw with the POP and IMAP protocols (why I call them gPOP and gIMAP), Microsoft figured it could play with e-mail, HTML, and MIME however they want because of their domination in the e-mail client market, especially for businesses. And they're right; they can do whatever they like (and not just in email), because of their dominance. I've given up fighting - I use Outlook for council business. But I fear that if I ever went into business, I'd need to use - or at least accept and be able to deal with - it there too )-:. (To revert to the subject line: I really only asked what happened to the _displayed_ size in case someone actually _knew_ - and because I remembered when using an _older_ version of Outlook, the displayed size [of an email] _did_ fall when I removed an attachment. Seems nobody [here, anyway] _does_ know. I should have said "don't put effort into finding the answer if you don't know - it's only idle curiosity", or something like that.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Hadrian's Wall has never been a border between Scotland and England. It lies entirely within England but, when it was built in AD 122 by the Romans as a defence against the raiding Picts, the future English were still in Germany and the Scottish were still in Ireland. - Michael Cullen, Skye, in RT 2014/12/6-12 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 17:34:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: [] I've given up fighting - I use Outlook for council business. But I fear that if I ever went into business, I'd need to use - or at least accept and be able to deal with - it there too )-:. I think it's somewhat a matter of getting comfortable with a certain product. In my case, I started using Outlook in the late 90s and still do. Along the way, I trialed Outlook Express, Eudora, and Thunderbird, and very quickly abandoned each of them. For me, none of them came close to Outlook, which IMHO is head and shoulders above them. We're all different, though. No one else has to like what I like. (To revert to the subject line: I really only asked what happened to the _displayed_ size in case someone actually _knew_ - and because I remembered when using an _older_ version of Outlook, the displayed size [of an email] _did_ fall when I removed an attachment. Seems nobody [here, anyway] _does_ know. I should have said "don't put effort into finding the answer if you don't know - it's only idle curiosity", or something like that.) I've never paid any attention to size, sorry. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 13:09:27, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 17:34:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: [] I've given up fighting - I use Outlook for council business. But I fear that if I ever went into business, I'd need to use - or at least accept and be able to deal with - it there too )-:. I think it's somewhat a matter of getting comfortable with a certain product. In my case, I started using Outlook in the late 90s and still do. Along the way, I trialed Outlook Express, Eudora, and Thunderbird, and very quickly abandoned each of them. For me, none of them came close to Outlook, which IMHO is head and shoulders above them. We're all different, though. No one else has to like what I like. I quite liked the version I used at work (2007 or the one after that); as a mail handler it's not bad (though better when Outlook-Quotefix worked, which it did up to the 2003 version I think), and integrated with its calendaring and other functions for a work environment, it's good. The way it interferes with quoting (and other) formatting drives me nuts, but I live with it. (_Some_ of that is probably the Word stub that Mayayana/VanguardLH mentioned.) [It's obsessed with top-posting and makes interposting difficult, but most of the world these days _does_ top-post and doesn't interpost, so that doesn't bother most of them.] Outlook Express (with OE-quotefix) was IMO much maligned: I never used it myself as an email client, but have seen others do so, and it works well enough. I have used it as a news client when we still had news at work - in disguise that is; Outlook didn't actually handle news, but pretended to, actually calling OE to do so. My blind friends use Eudora (and before that Pegasus); seems to work well enough. Thunderbird would be my default, I think, if I had to stop using Turnpike; it seems well supported (not by Mozilla, but by other users, and add-on writers). I gather Mozilla have broken it a bit, and are planning to do so more, but older versions are available from Mozilla and, for something like mail, should continue to work for some years yet. To be honest, *as mail handlers*, I don't see a lot of difference between several of the clients I've used; as long as they have something like the three-pane layout, "folders", and an address book, I haven't seen _much_ to distinguish them from each other. (To revert to the subject line: I really only asked what happened to the _displayed_ size in case someone actually _knew_ - and because I [] I've never paid any attention to size, sorry. (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf .... the closest thing the movies have ever got to a human special effect. - Barry Norman on Arnold Schwarzenegger (RT 2014/9/27-10/3) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
Char Jackson wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: I've given up fighting - I use Outlook for council business. But I fear that if I ever went into business, I'd need to use - or at least accept and be able to deal with - it there too )-:. I think it's somewhat a matter of getting comfortable with a certain product. In my case, I started using Outlook in the late 90s and still do. Along the way, I trialed Outlook Express, Eudora, and Thunderbird, and very quickly abandoned each of them. For me, none of them came close to Outlook, which IMHO is head and shoulders above them. We're all different, though. No one else has to like what I like. I've used the free version of em Client for several months now. Seems very close to what Outlook can do. Even has some features that aren't in Outlook; see: https://www.emclient.com/how-we-compare However, it isn't without bugs, the biggest one with Gmail, but is a problem with their stingy allocation of Gmail API quota. They don't want to pay to up their Google API project account to get more quota. If it is only used in their freeware version (I doubt it), they don't want to flush money down the toilet to up their API quota for freeloaders. Yet, the freeloaders won't become paying customers if they continue to encounter "exceeded API quota" errors. em Client can use several e-mail protocols: POP, IMAP, SMTP, Exchange, Gmail API, AirSync, and probably others that I'm not aware off. The default when adding a new Gmail account into em Client is to use Gmail API since that is akin to Exchange in supporting access to e-mail, calendar, and contacts services. All those freeloading users (and maybe even the paid customers) are using em Client Inc's Google account with whatever quota it currently is assigned for API call limits. Tool em Client a year after the users started reporting the "exceeded API quota" error message (assuming users looked into its logfile) before the company upped their API quota. That lasted less than a month. Their quota was far too low, and the increase was still not enough to handle all their current users, so new users impacted their API quota even more. There's no contact for pre-sales support to find out if their free and paid versions use different Google accounts for Mail API requests to be sure the paid users got to use an account with a far larger API quota. The cure was to delete the Gmail account defined in em Client, and create a new one, but this time do a manual setup. Don't let it create a default account using the Google's Mail API. Instead manual define a Gmail account that used IMAP. No more e-mail errors about exceeding some API call limit, because IMAP was used instead of Mail API. However, you lost the integration via Mail API to your Gmail calendar and contacts. Yeah, em Client can use CalDAV but that's clumsy and I never found it reliable. Without Mail API (and going to IMAP), you lose sync between client- and server-side contacts. You just have a local contacts list. I'd buy em Client ($50 lifetime license) if I could only contact them on a pre-sales question to check that they do NOT use their same Google account with its under-sized API quota that impacts users of their free version, and instead the paid customers get to use a different Google account of theirs with a much larger API quota. The default API quota, and even after they upped it, looks exceedingly generous, but only for a few dozen users. Without tens of thousands of users, their quota is far too small. Every call to the Gmail API counts as another request: get number of new messages, receive, send, calendar alert or modify, contact add or edit, and so on. Other than the above **** up regarding their undersized API quota, em Client looks to be the closest competitor to Outlook (which also has its own defects). In my case, Gmail is a secondary account, so using IMAP to it is okay with me. I don't use Google's Calendar or Contacts services (not even on my Android smartphone). Hotmail is my primary account for email, calendar, and contacts (because em Client supports Exchange). I'm in a Catch-22: as a free user, they don't provide a means for me to ask a pre-sales question on how their payware version works, and if they use a "business" Google account for a much larger API quota for paying customers, but I don't want to pay $50 to find out. Oh, and I ended up using their Win32 program. They have a UWP/RT (Universal Windows Platform/RunTime) app, but it has no "Start on Windows" option to load when you login. I want an e-mail client to load when I log into my Windows account, so I get e-mail alerts immediately, not when I happen to think about loading the app sometime after login. Apps are identified by using an app ID, not an executable file, so you cannot create a shortcut to an app since you don't know the app ID (there are ways to hunt in the registry to find the app ID, but you cannot specify it in a shortcut that you manually create). A workaround is to use File Explorer to enter shell:appsfolder in the address line, and in another instance of File Explorer enter shell:startup. I then drag an app from the Apps folder into the Startup folder. Alas, if you close the app's window, the app unloads, so no more e-mail or calendar alerts. The app won't stay running in the background when you close its windows. Yeah, you could have it load on startup, configure the app ID shortcut to minimize the window, but you're stuck losing a slot in the Windows taskbar to show the running app instead of minimizing to a tray icon. The Win32 version can load on startup, and minimize to a tray icon to keep clean the taskbar. Oh, yeah another one, the freeware version is limited to just 2 accounts. I have 6 total, but only 3 are monitored. Their free version will let you define more than 2 accounts, but eventually it stops polling one, or more, of them. You'd think they'd puke an error popup when you attempt to define a 3rd account, but they don't, and eventually problems crop up when having more than the 2 account max supported by their free version. I could have the 3rd account forward all its messages to one of the two polled by em Client, but then replying to those 3rd account e-mails results in using the wrong account. I've had lots of problems with Outlook since using it from the XP (2000) version, so it's not a stellar e-mail client, either. They all seem to have lots of bugs. I can't qualitatively declare that em Client is worse than Outlook, but it has a free version that Outlook doesn't, and, no, Outlook Express, Windows Mail, Mail, and other freebie clients from Outlook don't compete anywhere near to Outlook, or even to em Client. I used to have an Office365 account with the local clients and 1 TB OneDrive quota, but I grew tired of having to repay every year for that subscriptionware. I switched to LibreOffice, but no PIM (Personal Information Manager) component for e-mail, calendaring, and contact management. I trialed lots of candidates. Thunderbird was included, but after 6 months I couldn't take it solving problems with it. I've had a much better experience using em Client for over 4 months now, but not a bugfree experience. I've repeatedly considered whether I should pay $50 just to find out if they've resolved the Gmail API quota problem, along with getting support for more than 3 accounts. Yet $50 is a lot cheaper than paying for Office 365 subscriptionware just to get Outlook with some perks: Office suite instead of LibreOffice, 1 TB OneDrive quota instead of my 15 GB current freebie quota (5GB default plus 10GB "loyalty" add-on quota), and 60-minute/month Skype call-out quota (which I never used when I had it, because I had free VOIP calling with my ISP from home or phone, and also have Google Voice for free VOIP calling from home and phone). For an alternate to Outlook, and with equal or some more features than Outlook, I haven't found a candidate better than em Client. And there's a free version of em Client. No crippled free version of Outlook (unless you go extreme with the Windows-bundled clients, but which are sufficient for many users). I haven't found a better Outlook substitute than em Client. No, Thunderbird ain't one: just better than some of the other freebies. At the high end, Outlook and em Client. Thunderbird in the middle. Microsoft's bundled freebies at the bottom. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
I quite liked the version I used at work (2007 or the one after that); as a mail handler it's not bad (though better when Outlook-Quotefix worked, which it did up to the 2003 version I think), ... Unlike the OE-QuoteFix extension to Outlook Express that worked automatically to properly compose outbound HTML-formatted e-mails, Outlook-QuoteFix was a VBA macro you had to remember to run before you clicked Send. You would have to change your send procedure from clicking Send to click-QuoteFix-then-click-Send. The author's home page disappeared sometime mid-2015. The last version (0.91) was released back on 2006-10-15, and was a RC (Release Candidate) version, not a GA (General Availability) version. Outlook 2003 was the last version it worked with. The author reported back then it did not work with Outlook 2007. http://web.archive.org/web/201504020...atibility.html (last archived web page for the author's site before it disappeared) My blind friends use Eudora (and before that Pegasus); seems to work well enough. There's pre-Thunderbird Eudora and post-Thunderbird Eudora OSE. The OSE version switched to using a fork of Thunderbird back in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_OSE Thunderbird would be my default, I think, if I had to stop using Turnpike; it seems well supported (not by Mozilla, but by other users, and add-on writers). Well, not so much for add-ons, anymore. Version 78 (actually back in version 69, but which not a released version) dropped support for XUL modeled extensions. For security reasons, and coincidentally to discard tons of abandoned add-ons, Thunderbird moved to the MailExtensions model. Like when Firefox switched from XUL to WebExtensions which barred lots of old extensions (and got rid of lots of abandonware), Thunderbird finally moved to MailExtensions for add-ons. The result is LOTS of old Thunderbird extensions no long work with the new Thunderbird. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 at 19:23:04, VanguardLH wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: I quite liked the version I used at work (2007 or the one after that); as a mail handler it's not bad (though better when Outlook-Quotefix worked, which it did up to the 2003 version I think), ... Unlike the OE-QuoteFix extension to Outlook Express that worked automatically to properly compose outbound HTML-formatted e-mails, Outlook-QuoteFix was a VBA macro you had to remember to run before you clicked Send. You would have to change your send procedure from clicking Send to click-QuoteFix-then-click-Send. I don't think I remember having to do anything like that. (But it's academic now anyway, I fear.) [] My blind friends use Eudora (and before that Pegasus); seems to work well enough. There's pre-Thunderbird Eudora and post-Thunderbird Eudora OSE. The OSE version switched to using a fork of Thunderbird back in 2010. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudora_OSE When I heard about Eudora_OSE, I thought great: I can get my friend using Thunderbird which would be more future-proof, and would give him something that would work on Windows 7, which he'd just switched to. But: (a) it may look like Eudora to a sighted person but didn't to a blind person, (b) we found that "real" Eudora worked fine under 7 (and indeed 10, so far!), (c) the version of Thunderbird it used was a very early one - version 4? - and I think it's been abandoned altogether. Thunderbird would be my default, I think, if I had to stop using Turnpike; it seems well supported (not by Mozilla, but by other users, and add-on writers). Well, not so much for add-ons, anymore. Version 78 (actually back in version 69, but which not a released version) dropped support for XUL modeled extensions. For security reasons, and coincidentally to discard tons of abandoned add-ons, Thunderbird moved to the MailExtensions model. Like when Firefox switched from XUL to WebExtensions which barred lots of old extensions (and got rid of lots of abandonware), Thunderbird finally moved to MailExtensions for add-ons. The result is LOTS of old Thunderbird extensions no long work with the new Thunderbird. Yes, I read mozilla.general and have gathered that they broke a lot of extensions recently in much the same way they did with Firefox; I gather that the very latest version has broken yet another popular extension. (So I've downloaded Thunderbird Setup 52.9.1.exe, which various people said was the last to suit lots of extensions, in case I ever need it. [I've also got several of the extensions.]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you help someone when they're in trouble, they will remember you when they're in trouble again. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook 365: message sizes not falling when attachments removed?
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: When I heard about Eudora_OSE, I thought great: I can get my friend using Thunderbird which would be more future-proof, and would give him something that would work on Windows 7, which he'd just switched to. But: (a) it may look like Eudora to a sighted person but didn't to a blind person, it didn't look like eudora to a sighted person either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|