OE Is Deleting My NG Headers
in [Outlook Express]
|
Prev: Error code 0x800CCC0E & 0X8000CCC78
Next: errore
From: Gerry on 2 Feb 2009 04:51 DSH Is the problem that you post after you have over indulged at Mory's Association? Sometimes the results are a friendly jolly person. I guess it has the other affect on you bringing out an inherent mean spirit. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D. Spencer Hines wrote: > 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: Neil on 2 Feb 2009 05:48 > All you have offered, so far, is your *guess* that OE has somehow > changed recently (despite the fact that no new functionality has been > added since 2002) because you see a change in behavior. The product > hasn't changed. I accept that. I never said OE changed recently. My original post here was about what *settings* I may have changed or might need to change to get back to how I perceived it used to work. I never said OE changed recently, as you assert. > Its settings or server's retention have changed. Exactly. I never said otherwise. > It's > even possible you have a corrupted .dbx file. Since you didn't even > bother to go through the process of resetting the newsgroup (and > disabling the "get N messages" option so all posts would get > re-retrieved) to see if all those old posts would show up then it is > just as likely that you won't bother to unsubscribe from the newsgroup, > delete the .dbx file for that newsgroup, if it exists, and resubscribe > to see if the old posts show up. You sound personally offened over what I do or don't do. I came here looking for answers, asked a few questions, got a few opinions, end of story. This is just a discussion. There's no need to be on a "quest" here to get me to accept your point of view. I heard what you said. If I don't accept it or don't take the steps your proposed, then just move on. I honestly don't know why you're so obsessed with getting me to accept your point of view! > Everyone but you knows that there has been no new code added to OE since > 2002. You should mean everyone including me. > You see a change in behavior and without any programmer expertise > go claiming there must've been a code change. What reality do you live in? Can you quote one place where I said there was a recent code change? Where do you get this nonsense from? > Despite your claims that > OE has been changed recently, it hasn't changed since 2002. Again, same as per above! Weird. >> 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. > > Again, you're guessing that a behavior change somehow was manifested in > a code change to OE. Nope. Amazing! You snip out the portion of your post that I was referring to, and then accuse me of "guessing" at a behavior change! Amazing! I was merely referring to what YOU had said! YOU: > OE hasn't changed this functionality since OE5. ME: > And yet you wrote above: ME QUOTING YOU: > 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. ME AGAIN: 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. So you say that it was not designed to have any functions other than what it does have; yet you also admit that it's functionality changed with OE5. Those two statements contradict each other. If pre-OE5 versions had that functionality, then it *wasn't* designed to not have any functions other than what it does have, in contradistinction to what you wrote. > You've been told by others that OE is a > stagnant, dead, and unchanging product. Nothing got downloaded from > Microsoft, like a Windows Update, that changed code in OE. It's still > the same OE is has been for over a decade. And I never disagreed with that. Listen, I took the time to respond to your post here. But this discussion with you is a waste of time. We're going round and round in circles, saying the same things over and over again, and I'm done wasting my time. Feel free to reply here; but I won't be continuing this discussion with you. Thanks for sharing your point of view. I've heard it, and I'm done discussing it with you. Thanks.
From: Steve Cochran on 2 Feb 2009 08:32 Refrain from ad hominem attacks in these newsgroups. If you want to insult people, go somewhere else. steve "D. Spencer Hines" <panther(a)excelsior.com> wrote in message news:uYw7FfFhJHA.4200(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > 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: Steve Cochran on 2 Feb 2009 08:35 OE never retained NG messages once they expired off the server. Not even in OE4. steve "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:gIehl.11586$W06.5491(a)flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com... > > "Ron Sommer" <rsommer(a)nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message > news:O3WS86AhJHA.3444(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> >> "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:zSZgl.19281$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: Ron Sommer on 2 Feb 2009 08:56
Gerry, Doing a manual compaction of all folders and closing OE or switching Identities will have the result of the compact check count count for that Identity being 1. Saying yes to run the automatic compaction will have the result of the compact check count count for that Identity being 1. So, the 100th close of an Identity after a compaction close would bring up the compaction message. Neither manual or automatic compaction changes the compact check count for other Identities. Switching Identities increases the compact check count. If an Identity's compact check count is 100, switching Identities will bring up the compaction message for that Identity. Click yes and the compaction occurs, then the selected Identity opens. Conclusion, closing an Identity 100 times will bring up the compaction message for that Identity. -- Ronald Sommer "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:u2dXvvRhJHA.4556(a)TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > 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 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> snipped |