A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Outlook too big



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old October 8th 17, 05:10 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 09:04 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 09:14 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 09:46 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 09:48 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 07:36 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
George[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 08:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 08:09 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 08:09 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 10:48 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 10:48 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,600
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 10:54 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 11:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 11:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default 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  
Old October 8th 17, 11:23 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default 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
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.