OE Is Deleting My NG Headers
in [Outlook Express]
|
Prev: Error code 0x800CCC0E & 0X8000CCC78
Next: errore
From: Gerry on 2 Feb 2009 11:45 VanguardLH The changes to Compacting messages in the background were made much later than 2002! I think sometime between August 2004 and 2006. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ VanguardLH wrote: > > Everyone but you knows that there has been no new code added to OE > since 2002. You see a change in behavior and without any programmer > expertise go claiming there must've been a code change. Despite your > claims that OE has been changed recently, it hasn't changed since > 2002. >
From: Gerry on 2 Feb 2009 11:52 Ron I have not tested but can accept that compacting one identity will not compact another. It is logical that switching an identity is eqivalent to closing an identity. When I have a moment I will test on this machine. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ron Sommer wrote: > 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. > > "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
From: Bruce Hagen on 2 Feb 2009 12:03 That came with SP2 on August 25, 2004. That had no effect on how newsgroup posts were handled, of course. Back in '04, MSNews was only retaining messages for 30 days. -- Bruce Hagen MS-MVP Outlook Express Imperial Beach, CA "Gerry" <gerry(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:OqXq1WVhJHA.3904(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > VanguardLH > > The changes to Compacting messages in the background were made much later > than 2002! I think sometime between August 2004 and 2006. > > > -- > > > > Gerry > ~~~~ > FCA > Stourport, England > Enquire, plan and execute > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > VanguardLH wrote: >> >> Everyone but you knows that there has been no new code added to OE >> since 2002. You see a change in behavior and without any programmer >> expertise go claiming there must've been a code change. Despite your >> claims that OE has been changed recently, it hasn't changed since >> 2002. >> > >
From: Neil on 2 Feb 2009 13:14 >>> Sorry. My fingers typed other than my intentions. Google does not >>> publish >>> an Operating System; which is the core business of Microsoft. > >> Microsoft's core businesses are Windows and Office. Losing Office would >> be a >> very big deal to them. So important is Office that years ago they >> invested >> in Apple Computer, their chief OS rival, to ensure that Apple didn't go >> under, most likely because of all of the Apple Office users. > > As I said, I use OpenOffice. Microsoft already faces competition in that > field, and has for a long time. Most businesses are not going to switch to OpenOffice. Business consumers are their main source of revenue. A Google product, solidly built, could draw business customers away. > >>> I am not really interested in web-based OSes. Those would require an >>> always on Internet connection. In the event that my Internet connection >>> dies (and it happens about once a month, whether I like it, or not), my >>> web-based OS would be useless; my computer nothing more than an >>> expensive >>> doorstop. I'll stick to a disk-based OS, thank you. > >> You're completely mistaken here. >> >> First, Chrome (or IE, or Firefox) is not "web-based." You can't have a >> web-based browser that's used for browsing the web! The browser is itself >> your window to the web. All browsers (including Chrome) are PC-based, and >> are installed on the hard drive. > > Which requires an Operating System to run. Missing the point. You said you weren't interested in a web-based OS, but would stick to a disk-based OS. I said that if Chrome became an OS, it would be disk-based. All web-browsers are disk-based to being with, not web-based; so if Chrome became an OS, it would be disk-based. If Chrome became an OS, it would not "require an Operating System to run"; it would BE an operating system. A machine would boot directly into it, just like machines now book into Windows or other OS's. The rest of your post refers to government intrusion and the preference for offline tools. So I'll leave that in the realm of opinion without a counterpoint. Neil
From: D. Spencer Hines on 2 Feb 2009 13:30
"Neil" admits defeat, folds up his tent, meekly departs the thread and says he will no longer listen to or discuss these issues with his interlocutors. Excellent! D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ydAhl.3446$PE4.2520(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... <toshsnip> |