OE Is Deleting My NG Headers
in [Outlook Express]
|
Prev: Error code 0x800CCC0E & 0X8000CCC78
Next: errore
From: D. Spencer Hines on 1 Feb 2009 20:26 Correct... Thick Noodle Syndrome [TNS]... Writ Large. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message news:gm53dm$opu$1(a)news.motzarella.org... > Per Neil's remarks, he claims OE has somehow changed despite everyone > telling him that support died over 6 years ago. For some reason, he > keep refusing to believe that OE's articles list stays in sync with the > server's article list. He sees a change in behavior and attributes it > to OE rather than to the server expiring old articles and OE staying in > sync. He doesn't want to go through the manual process of saving posts > to a different folder to keep them locally archived but he wants OE to > do something different than how it was coded over a decade ago. He > isn't going to believe anyone that differs than his opinion on how OE > works. He saw a behavior change and attributes it to a functionality > change in OE rather than retention change at the server. > > It's a lost cause with Neil. Time to unwatch this thread. He doesn't > really want help. He wants to rant about how defunct and unsupported OE > isn't behaving how *he* wants it to behave.
From: John Pollard on 1 Feb 2009 22:46 Gerry wrote: > Bear > > They will always be trolls if you do not encourage them to moderate > their behaviour. My answer could well be of interest to others reading > this thread. It does not give the troll ammunition or invite a flame > war. He asked a reasonable question so I responded with a reasonable > answer. > > > PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: >> Please don't feed the troll, Gerry...especially /that/ troll. I have no direct knowledge about this ... but I am very interested in the subject. One part of me says I want to tell the trolls how much I despise them. Another part of me says that if I do, I am only giving them what they want. Question: is there any verifiable evidence about the effect of one policy or the other?
From: Bruce Hagen on 1 Feb 2009 22:55 "John Pollard" <invalid(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:eStDgjOhJHA.2384(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Gerry wrote: >> Bear >> >> They will always be trolls if you do not encourage them to moderate >> their behaviour. My answer could well be of interest to others reading >> this thread. It does not give the troll ammunition or invite a flame >> war. He asked a reasonable question so I responded with a reasonable >> answer. >> >> >> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: >>> Please don't feed the troll, Gerry...especially /that/ troll. > > I have no direct knowledge about this ... but I am very interested in the > subject. > > One part of me says I want to tell the trolls how much I despise them. > > Another part of me says that if I do, I am only giving them what they > want. > > Question: is there any verifiable evidence about the effect of one policy > or the other? A good percentage give up when being ignored. A smaller percentage give up when put in their place. For a tiny fraction, neither is a solution and either option entices them. Unfortunately, the poster in question makes up 99% of the last group. -- ~Bruce
From: Gerry on 2 Feb 2009 04:11 John Is there any verifiable evidence about the effect of one policy or the other works in the way you bring up children? -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John Pollard wrote: > Gerry wrote: >> Bear >> >> They will always be trolls if you do not encourage them to moderate >> their behaviour. My answer could well be of interest to others >> reading this thread. It does not give the troll ammunition or invite >> a flame war. He asked a reasonable question so I responded with a >> reasonable answer. >> >> >> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: >>> Please don't feed the troll, Gerry...especially /that/ troll. > > I have no direct knowledge about this ... but I am very interested in > the subject. > > One part of me says I want to tell the trolls how much I despise them. > > Another part of me says that if I do, I am only giving them what they > want. > Question: is there any verifiable evidence about the effect of one > policy or the other?
From: Gerry on 2 Feb 2009 04:42
Ron The earlier system of compacting messages in the background was more correctly described as automatic compaction. The introduction of the ability to defer makes it not automatic, although the prompt is automatic.You can have the same debate with the operating system automatic update process. The process is commonly referred to as automatic compaction so that is what we need to call it, otherwise it confuses those less aware of the finer points. The prompt comes after shutting down 100 times and when the users attempts 101. You disgreed earlier with my saying "On closing Outlook Express 100 times." What I said was correct as the prompt comes before Outlook Express closes 101 times. This is, however, us both being pedantic. This statement by you is incorrect "Each OE Identity has its' own compact check count, so in actuality, the compact message will appear after the 101st close of each OE Identity. " There is a separate count for each identity. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ron Sommer wrote: > I do not consider the compaction as automatic when the user has to > allow the compaction to occur, however I will yield to the accepted > understanding and say that OE has automatic compaction. > I played with the Compact Check Count and discovered that the count is > increased on shutdown. > What I did reconfirm is that the compact message is on the 101st > shutdown of OE. The count is 100 from the previous shutdown. If no > is selected or the message box cancelled, the compact check count > increments to 101 and continues to increment with each no or close of > the box. > It is easy to change the compact check count to 99, then open and > close OE. The count will now be 100 with no compact message. > > Each OE Identity has its' own compact check count, so in actuality, > the compact message will appear after the 101st close of each OE > Identity. The compaction only applies to one Identity. > > "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message > news:##g2EPIhJHA.1292(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Ron >> >> "I see that you are not using a version of OE that has automatic >> compaction. Earlier versions did have automatic compaction" >> >> The generally accepted understanding of automatic compaction is that >> the user is prompted to compact after closing Outlook Express 100 >> times. My version of Outlook Express does this if I allow the count >> to reach 100. It is rare for me to allow this to happen as I >> manually compact before the count reachs 100. Manual compaction of >> all folders resets the count to zero. Manual compaction of some >> folders does not reset the count. Please explain the basis of your >> assertion that I am not using a version that has automatic >> compaction? Are you confusing automatic compaction with compacting >> messages in >> the background? The former replaced the latter several years ago! >> They are not the same. Automatic compaction incorporates the >> placement of a backup copy in the recycle bin before each dbx files >> is compacted. This feature was not present within compacting >> messages in the background! Similarly the optional delete function, >> which could be used with compacting messages in the background, is >> no longer available for use with automatic compaction. The user has >> the option with automatic compaction to defer the process. Whilst >> deferral can be on every closure it is only a deferral as the >> invitation to compact will occur on every closure until the >> invitation is accepted. There was no invitation to compact feature >> with compacting messages in the background. You either configured >> Outlook Express to use compacting messages in the background or you >> chose not to use the feature. "The compaction message will not >> appear until the 101st close of >> OE." I was disagreeing with this statement! You now seem to be >> qualifying the statement without admitting that this is what you are >> doing! -- >> >> >> >> Gerry >> ~~~~ >> FCA >> Stourport, England >> Enquire, plan and execute >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> Ron Sommer wrote: >>> I see that you are not using a version of OE that has automatic >>> compaction. Earlier versions did have automatic compaction and the >>> message store could become corrupted when the computer was shutdown >>> when OE was compacting. The compaction message was added so that >>> the compaction would not occur unless the user clicks OK. >>> >>> I do not see anywhere in my post that says that OE is the only >>> program that increases the Compact Check Count. I just commented on >>> the way that OE used the Compact Check Count. >>> >>> Yes, some people have received the Compact message without even >>> using OE or opening OE >100 times. This still causes the compaction >>> message that must be clicked for the compaction to occur and does >>> not cause an automatic compaction. >>> >>> "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:uJ155zBhJHA.3708(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> You're splitting hairs and wrong in the cases that Bruce has picked >>>> up on. -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gerry >>>> ~~~~ >>>> FCA >>>> Stourport, England >>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Ron Sommer wrote: >>>>> When OE opens, it checks the count. If the count is 100, the >>>>> compaction message will appear when you close OE. >>>>> There is no automatic compaction, because the user has to ok the >>>>> compaction. The count changes on the opening of OE. >>>>> The compaction message will not appear until the 101st close of >>>>> OE. "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. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry >>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>> FCA >>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> > snipped |