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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On 10/07/2017 08:36 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
T wrote: VanguardLH wrote: By the way, the MS Outlook newsgroup is over at ---. ,--------------------------------------------------' '--- microsoft.public.outlook.general And it is almost unused You don't know a newsgroup is dead until you post to see if no one responds. Lack of volume does not equate to void of participation. I was just there to answer someone's Outlook question. If there is no one there asking for help, just who is going to bother responding? Of course, you could follow the flood of boobs that went to Microsoft's Answers forums when Microsoft announced abandoning Usenet (in them providing the peering NNTP server to Usenet, not that they were ever there). The MVPs ran to the forums, too. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com I have tried that newsgroup before. This one has tons more intellectual property, especially you, than that one does. I don't waste my time with it. M$'s forms are a bit better, but they are not good at anything complicated. And they are censored. (I found out the words "obnoxious" and "M$" are not filtered, so I can call any thing M$ obnoxious and get away with it.) |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
T wrote:
On 10/07/2017 08:36 PM, VanguardLH wrote: T wrote: VanguardLH wrote: By the way, the MS Outlook newsgroup is over at ---. ,--------------------------------------------------' '--- microsoft.public.outlook.general And it is almost unused You don't know a newsgroup is dead until you post to see if no one responds. Lack of volume does not equate to void of participation. I was just there to answer someone's Outlook question. If there is no one there asking for help, just who is going to bother responding? Of course, you could follow the flood of boobs that went to Microsoft's Answers forums when Microsoft announced abandoning Usenet (in them providing the peering NNTP server to Usenet, not that they were ever there). The MVPs ran to the forums, too. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com I have tried that newsgroup before. This one has tons more intellectual property, especially you, than that one does. I don't waste my time with it. M$'s forms are a bit better, but they are not good at anything complicated. And they are censored. (I found out the words "obnoxious" and "M$" are not filtered, so I can call any thing M$ obnoxious and get away with it.) So was the hint about autoarchive useful? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On 10/08/2017 01:04 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
T wrote: On 10/07/2017 08:36 PM, VanguardLH wrote: T wrote: VanguardLH wrote: By the way, the MS Outlook newsgroup is over at ---. ,--------------------------------------------------' '--- microsoft.public.outlook.general And it is almost unused You don't know a newsgroup is dead until you post to see if no one responds. Lack of volume does not equate to void of participation. I was just there to answer someone's Outlook question. If there is no one there asking for help, just who is going to bother responding? Of course, you could follow the flood of boobs that went to Microsoft's Answers forums when Microsoft announced abandoning Usenet (in them providing the peering NNTP server to Usenet, not that they were ever there). The MVPs ran to the forums, too. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com I have tried that newsgroup before. This one has tons more intellectual property, especially you, than that one does. I don't waste my time with it. M$'s forms are a bit better, but they are not good at anything complicated. And they are censored. (I found out the words "obnoxious" and "M$" are not filtered, so I can call any thing M$ obnoxious and get away with it.) So was the hint about autoarchive useful? No. I am looking for a database to off load their defunct junk to. And it has to be something automatic. They WILL NOT interact with it. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
In message , VanguardLH
writes: T wrote: I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY. We are talking 30 GB PST files. Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? Use AutoArchive already built into Outlook. Nothing has to be thrown away but might be better, especially for performance, to have a small message store for the active messages. This [LONG - though good - explanation snipped] sounds as if it might be just what T needs. [] Remember that you must open and leave open the old archive files so the user can search through plus have Outlook exercise the autoarchive [] Although that does concern me: if the archive files must be opened and left open, what - other than intellectual satisfaction (and perhaps splitting the old emails into more than one file) - is achieved: will Outlook run any faster etc.? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from desiccation. - Humphrey Lyttelton quoted by Barry Cryer in Radio Times 10-16 November 2012 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
In message , T writes:
On 10/08/2017 01:04 AM, VanguardLH wrote: [] So was the hint about autoarchive useful? No. I am looking for a database to off load their defunct junk to. And it has to be something automatic. They WILL NOT interact with it. As VanguardLH described it, it sounded to me like it _was_ automatic. I think most of what he described would be something you would have to set up for them - but once so set up, it sounded like it was automatic. (For example, daily runs of the thing that marks them for archive, weekly or monthly runs of the thing that actually moves the ones that have been marked.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from desiccation. - Humphrey Lyttelton quoted by Barry Cryer in Radio Times 10-16 November 2012 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
Take a look at program MailStore. It might meet your needs.
George On 10/6/2017 11:16 PM, T wrote: Hi All, I got an annoying one for you guy. I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY.Â* We are talking 30 GB PST files.Â* Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? Many thanks, -T |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:48:45 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , T writes: On 10/08/2017 01:04 AM, VanguardLH wrote: [] So was the hint about autoarchive useful? No. I am looking for a database to off load their defunct junk to. And it has to be something automatic. They WILL NOT interact with it. As VanguardLH described it, it sounded to me like it _was_ automatic. I think most of what he described would be something you would have to set up for them - but once so set up, it sounded like it was automatic. (For example, daily runs of the thing that marks them for archive, weekly or monthly runs of the thing that actually moves the ones that have been marked.) Yes, it's exactly what he's looking for, but it doesn't have the word "database" associated with it, so he's dismissing it out of hand. It's frustrating to hand someone exactly the solution they're looking for and not have them recognize it for what it is. -- Char Jackson |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:46:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , VanguardLH writes: T wrote: I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY. We are talking 30 GB PST files. Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? Use AutoArchive already built into Outlook. Nothing has to be thrown away but might be better, especially for performance, to have a small message store for the active messages. This [LONG - though good - explanation snipped] sounds as if it might be just what T needs. [] It is. The process that I described (the little old lady) had a manual component to it, but the process that VLH described is fully automatic. Set it up once and forget it. The user never needs to adjust anything or otherwise mess with it. They don't really even need to know it's there. Remember that you must open and leave open the old archive files so the user can search through plus have Outlook exercise the autoarchive [] Although that does concern me: if the archive files must be opened and left open, what - other than intellectual satisfaction (and perhaps splitting the old emails into more than one file) - is achieved: will Outlook run any faster etc.? Yes, Outlook will run faster with a 1GB mailbox versus a 30GB mailbox, to use an extreme example. The presence of the other data files impacts Outlook's load time by a couple of seconds but has no real impact throughout the day. -- Char Jackson |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 22:14:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:13:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , T writes: Hi All, I got an annoying one for you guy. I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY. We are talking 30 GB PST files. Yikes! (I thought .pst files were deprecated, but anyway No, not deprecated at all. Still the default for POP3 accounts and mail archives, for example. IMAP accounts are more common now and they use .ost files, so maybe that's what you were thinking. Even then, .pst files are used for their archives and additional offline/local storage. This was a corporate email system at a large company, with an "Outlook server". I have no idea what the details were, other than that I'm pretty sure it wasn't POP. I have vague memory of being told to switch from .pst files - IIRR the IT department did it for those who had no idea what that involved, which was most of them. Can Outlook use more than one .pst file? Of course. Only one of the additional .pst files can be designated as the default archive file, (one per mailbox, that is), but that doesn't stop a person from creating and using as many additional .pst files as they want. Can it be configured to show (the user) the existence of the various .pst files, but not actually load them unless the user tries to access one of them? That part is somewhat manual. Say you discover that you need a copy of a contract that you know to be in your email from 2012. Using Outlook 2016 in my example, (previous versions are extremely similar), you'd go to File, Open, Open Outlook Data File [Open an Outlook data file (.pst)]. Navigate to the 2012.pst and open it. Now back in the main Outlook GUI, you see a new top-level object which I'll call 2012, but it's whatever the person named it. It doesn't have to be the same as the actual file name. Click the down arrow to expand it and there are all of the folders with the 2012 email. From there, you can view or search for that elusive contract. My recommendation is to close the 2012 .pst when you're done because it's one less file for Outlook to be keeping track of, but I know people who keep a dozen or more of those additional .pst files open at all times for quicker access. That doesn't slow Outlook noticeably because the main file, probably an .ost these days, can still be kept small, either via auto-archive or via manually moving unneeded emails to one of the other .pst's. When I say loading additional .pst's doesn't slow Outlook, I mean during regular operation. *Loading* Outlook does take a few additional seconds, at least potentially if those extra .pst's are bigger, but loading Outlook is something corporate users do, at most, once daily. Typically, you'd never shut down and restart Outlook again during a workday. Then there are people like me, who restart Outlook only when the PC is being rebooted, which around here happens about every 6-8 weeks or more. Here's my Outlook situation currently. I have 5 email accounts configured, all of them IMAP, so each has a related .ost data file. Each account has auto-archive enabled, so each account also has its own .pst file. Note that the archive folder, although referencing a separate ..pst, still shows up as a standard folder within the main folder hierarchy for each account. It looks like a regular folder, but behind the scenes it's a completely separate data file. I also have a _History_email_account file for each email account, named that way so that they group the way I want them to. The _History files are *usually* loaded and therefore visible, but now and then I close them to clean up the UI. Over time, they end up being opened again, one by one, as I discover something I want might be in one of them. -- Char Jackson |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On 10/08/2017 01:46 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes: T wrote: I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY.Â* We are talking 30 GB PST files.Â* Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? Use AutoArchive already built into Outlook.Â* Nothing has to be thrown away but might be better, especially for performance, to have a small message store for the active messages. This [LONG - though good - explanation snipped] sounds as if it might be just what T needs. [] Remember that you must open and leave open the old archive files so the user can search through plus have Outlook exercise the autoarchive [] Although that does concern me: if the archive files must be opened and left open, what - other than intellectual satisfaction (and perhaps splitting the old emails into more than one file) - is achieved: will Outlook run any faster etc.? True. Two programs versus one program. It is like hitting my head against a wall telling some folks they have to throw out their old stuff. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
On 10/08/2017 11:36 AM, George wrote:
Take a look at program MailStore.Â* It might meet your needs. Thank you! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
T wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: So was the hint about autoarchive useful? No. I am looking for a database to off load their defunct junk to. And it has to be something automatic. Your new requirement now is the process be automatic. Autoarchiving *is* automatic. You can setup a database and then install some add-on into Outlook where it must be configured in that client to do its job. or you can configure the clients to autoarchive. You only mentioned your customers independently using an e-mail client (Outlook). You never mentioned they are connecting to Exchange (or other servers that support the Exchange protocol). So server-side archiving is not, so far, an option. Just what "database" did you want to use? Sounds like you already have something in mind other than the .pst database files for archives. They WILL NOT interact with it. What good is that database if they aren't going to use it? Old e-mails are going into a bit bucket that the users aren't going to use. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes: T wrote: I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY. We are talking 30 GB PST files. Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? Use AutoArchive already built into Outlook. Nothing has to be thrown away but might be better, especially for performance, to have a small message store for the active messages. This [LONG - though good - explanation snipped] sounds as if it might be just what T needs. [] Remember that you must open and leave open the old archive files so the user can search through plus have Outlook exercise the autoarchive [] Although that does concern me: if the archive files must be opened and left open, what - other than intellectual satisfaction (and perhaps splitting the old emails into more than one file) - is achieved: will Outlook run any faster etc.? The performance problem per PST database is that as they get bigger then it takes longer to index and search. More stuff to work with. T's request looked like he wanted to reduce the size of the current message store to restore some snappiness to Outlook when it is manipulating THAT message store. The archive message stores aren't getting touched until whenever he configures the global AutoArchive to execute (which looks to see which folders have autoarchive enable in them and only move items that are eligible due to expiration. Autoarchiving happens in the background. It doesn't have to be ran every day. I do that so expiration within a folder is honored the moment (the next day) after an item becomes eligible. Autoarchive could be ran once per month, every few months, or just once a year but the more eligible items to move in the chain of archives the long the archiving will take. There is some noticeable impact if a large number of items get moved out of one message and into another. However, any database scheme T comes up with will do the same: it will have to determine what items are eligible for moving and then read from one message store to move an item into another message store and then delete the original item. All that message store interrogation will impact the performance (snappiness) of Outlook and why it is better to move a few items at a time instead of doing them en masse after a long time. If AutoArchive is run daily (for whatever eligible items, if any, in each folder where autoarchive was enabled) then few eligible items get moved. The long the interval between AutoArchive runs, the more eligible items to move. When I have AutoArchive run daily, I never notice it. The move volume is too small. I suggested leaving the archive files opened in Outlook so the users can search through them. However, T claims the users will never access his "remote database" scheme where the old e-mails are stored outside of Outlook. I don't see the point of keeping old e-mails that are never accessed again. If they're looking for data recovery only, a backup should be able to restore an old .pst database to open separately inside of Outlook to peruse through it without touching the current message store. With backups, just delete e-mails olders than, say, 5 years using AutoArchive. Set autoarchive in the folder to make items eligible that are over 5 years old and run AutoArchive every day or once a week or once a month. Have the autoarchive configured for a folder (not all folders need autoarchiving) to delete the over 5-year old items. If the user ever needs to recall an old e-mail, recover the .pst from backups and open it separately in Outlook. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
George wrote:
Take a look at program MailStore. It might meet your needs. T wrote: I got an annoying one for you guy. I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY.* We are talking 30 GB PST files.* Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? T only mentioned his customers using Outlook so they are all using local e-mail clients. There was no mention ever of those clients connecting to Exchange or using any collaboration server that controls and manages the message stores for the workstation clients. With T's customers, they're all operating independently. Mailstore works with e-mail service providers and their servers, not with single Outlook clients. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Outlook too big
T wrote:
I have several customer on Outlook (no they won't convert to Thunderbird) who WILL NOT THROW ANYTHING AWAY. We are talking 30 GB PST files. Yikes! Is there any database program out there that will save and catalog for quick (ha ha) search gobs of [ancient, useless] Outlook eMails? In that huge 30GB message store, is a lot of it consumed by attachments, especially large ones? If so, there are add-ons that can strip the attachments from the e-mails to store them in a separate file and put a link to that external file within the original e-mail. Stripping out photos, movies, maps, zips, or other huge files (by users that don't realize that e-mail was not intended to be a file transfer protocol) can significantly reduce the size of the message store. Basically you end up moving all the attachments out to a file and make the message store much smaller. https://www.mapilab.com/outlook/attachments_processor/ http://www.sperrysoftware.com/Email-...tachment-save/ https://www.techhit.com/ezdetach/out...tachments.html (*) (*) Don't know if it adds file links within e-mails to point at the stripped out and externally saved attachments. That's just one example. There might be free Outlook add-ons to do [nearly] the same thing of stripping out attachments. You can find some free code examples for VBA macros, like: https://www.slipstick.com/developer/...e-attachments/ https://www.slipstick.com/developer/...-a-new-folder/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|