OE Is Deleting My NG Headers
in [Outlook Express]
|
Prev: Error code 0x800CCC0E & 0X8000CCC78
Next: errore
From: Neil on 1 Feb 2009 05:17 >> But you really are playing devil's advocate here, aren't you? This >> discussion's becoming a waste of time. > > No, you're growing bored in not getting the answers that you want. OE > isn't going to change. You're the one beating the dead horse expecting > its behavior to change. My word, you just won't stop, will you? Do you have some psychotic compulsion to be right? Sheesh. Where did I say I expected OE's behavior to change? Is that just what you want to believe so you can keep going on and on about how it's not going to change? Pathetic. > OE was designed to be a "personal" e-mail and newsreader client. It was > not designed to be a newgroup server, an archiver, or any functions > other than what it does have. Really? So the fact that OE used to keep downloaded messages, and then later changed to not do so anymore (see posts from others in this thread, if you don't believe me), doesn't factor into your nonsense that OE has "always been this way," and it was "designed this way." I wouldn't want to step on your ideological toes; but you're wrong. It did have functions other than what it does have. You just can't accept that because it would shatter your belief in what a reader's "supposed to do." >> Again, a ridiculous waste of time. > > Well, then why did you start this conversation? You demand that only > replies that help you alter the product's behavior can be posted here? No, but you keep repeating yourself over and over again, thinking somehow that if you say enough times that OE was originally designed the way it currently works, and that it should not work any differently, that I'll accept your false statements. Your repeating the same thing over and over is a waste of time. I heard you the first few times. Now just move on. >> And, again, this isn't way OE used to work (your above statements >> notwithstanding). > > OE hasn't changed this functionality since OE5. And yet you wrote above: > OE was designed to be a "personal" e-mail and newsreader client. It was > not designed to be a newgroup server, an archiver, or any functions > other than what it does have. If it wasn't designed to have "any functions other than what it does have," then why did it, indeed, have those other functions (of retaining downloaded messages) prior to OE5? Again, this discussion's a waste of time.
From: Neil on 1 Feb 2009 05:19 "Ron Sommer" <rsommer(a)nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message news:O3WS86AhJHA.3444(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > > "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:zSZgl.19281$Ws1.7880(a)nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com... >> >>> OE is doing what a newsreader is supposed to do, keep the messages on >>> your >>> computer synched with the newsgroup server. >> >> Again, that was not the way OE used to work. It used to retain all msgs >> that were downloaded. >> >>> I don't know of any newsreaders that do not sync with the server. >>> You have not mentioned what news server that you are using. >> >> Why is that germane to the discussion? >> >> >> >>> The Microsoft server has a 90 day retention period. >>> -- >>> Ronald Sommer >> >> > > It is very germane. > You are incorrectly basing your idea of the operation of OE on a news > server that had a long retention period. > I have news servers that have a long retention period. > Because you insist on saying that OE used to keep all posts without saying > what news server that you were using, you haven't proved that your version > of OE works the way that you say. Well, since OE functionality changed while using the same newsserver, I assume the issue is with OE. Furthermore, I don't believe retention period is the issue since, when OE did retain messages, it would retain them indefinitely, easily at least a year or two. I don't think any newsserver kept messages that long. So if OE always syncronized with the NS, then they would have disappeared then, as well.
From: Neil on 1 Feb 2009 05:24 "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message news:gm32t2$srv$1(a)news.motzarella.org... > Neil wrote: > >> >> The messages are still there. Just many of them are gone. > > They are there. > They are gone. > Oh really. ;-))) What a pathetic bunch of children I'm dealing with here. What, are you going to go "nani nani boo boo" next? I was saying that I'm not missing ALL the messages. The messages (in general) are still there. Just many (but not all) of them are gone. Make sense now? Sheesh.
From: D. Spencer Hines on 1 Feb 2009 05:27 Yep... "Neil" is a pimply-faced kid -- in way over his depth. He can only transmit and not receive. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:cFehl.11585$W06.69(a)flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com... >>> But you really are playing devil's advocate here, aren't you? This >>> discussion's becoming a waste of time. >> >> No, you're growing bored in not getting the answers that you want. OE >> isn't going to change. You're the one beating the dead horse expecting >> its behavior to change. > > My word, you just won't stop, will you? Do you have some psychotic > compulsion to be right? Sheesh. > > Where did I say I expected OE's behavior to change? Is that just what you > want to believe so you can keep going on and on about how it's not going > to change? Pathetic. > >> OE was designed to be a "personal" e-mail and newsreader client. It was >> not designed to be a newgroup server, an archiver, or any functions >> other than what it does have. > > Really? So the fact that OE used to keep downloaded messages, and then > later changed to not do so anymore (see posts from others in this thread, > if you don't believe me), doesn't factor into your nonsense that OE has > "always been this way," and it was "designed this way." I wouldn't want to > step on your ideological toes; but you're wrong. It did have functions > other than what it does have. You just can't accept that because it would > shatter your belief in what a reader's "supposed to do." > >>> Again, a ridiculous waste of time. >> >> Well, then why did you start this conversation? You demand that only >> replies that help you alter the product's behavior can be posted here? > > No, but you keep repeating yourself over and over again, thinking somehow > that if you say enough times that OE was originally designed the way it > currently works, and that it should not work any differently, that I'll > accept your false statements. Your repeating the same thing over and over > is a waste of time. I heard you the first few times. Now just move on. > >>> And, again, this isn't way OE used to work (your above statements >>> notwithstanding). >> >> OE hasn't changed this functionality since OE5. > > And yet you wrote above: > >> OE was designed to be a "personal" e-mail and newsreader client. It was >> not designed to be a newgroup server, an archiver, or any functions >> other than what it does have. > > If it wasn't designed to have "any functions other than what it does > have," then why did it, indeed, have those other functions (of retaining > downloaded messages) prior to OE5? Again, this discussion's a waste of > time.
From: Neil on 1 Feb 2009 06:01
"Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:OT0GPkAhJHA.5408(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Neil > > On closing Outlook Express 100 times. On some systems something changes > the counter in the Registry when it is not intended so automatic > compacting can be triggered quite a bit earlier. The counter is meant to > increment by one on closure but something else cause the counter to > increment at other times. Bruce Hagen writes about this regularly. It > doesn't happen here. That's good to know. I wouldn't be surprised if that had something to do with what was going on here. Thanks. |