OE Is Deleting My NG Headers
in [Outlook Express]
|
Prev: Error code 0x800CCC0E & 0X8000CCC78
Next: errore
From: Gerry on 31 Jan 2009 04:17 VanguardLH This and an earlier post clearly reflect your personal experience. You are pointing out some pretty basic and fundamental elements of using Outlook Express as a news reader. Although I read Offline nearly all ring bells with me. I wonder why? Neil needs to reflect on this as it demonstates how we have learned how to make Outlook Express work for us notwithstanding it's flaws. I archive news posts. I do this every 14 days. Where I actively post I try to keep a month's messages in my current folder. This means I can quickly spot any response to one of my posts and reply. The number of posts per month to these newsgroups is less than 50% ( perhaps more ) than it was a few years ago. Measures to handle this volume were devised by me and others based on our individual experiences and they work. The regular archiving of news posts has a noticeable impact on the time it takes to load a newsgroup into memory. You can encounter the phenomenon of being able to drink a cup of coffee whilst you wait for the newsgroup to complete loading if you don't archive or trim the newsgroup size. I dual boot Windows XP with Vista. I prefer Windows XP plus Outlook Express to Vista and Windows Mail. I have not tried Windows Live Mail. I suspect I would not like it. You make a point about Windows Live Mail distributing files across the drive. This point also applies to Outlook Express; certainly if you download bodies. In the past, with smaller hard drives, I have placed the Outlook Express store folder in a dedicated partition to counter rapid fragmentation across the system. It poses less of a problem with larger drives and more generous amounts of free disk space. In my view it is the volume of turnover that creates the problem rather than the file structure. However, someone in this conversation commented on the impact of cluster size. Using NTFS I agree that Outlook Express would use less disk space so this would have an affect on the speed of fragmentation of free disk space. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ VanguardLH wrote: > Neil wrote: > >> "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message >> news:glvf19$av4$1(a)news.motzarella.org... >>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote: >>> >>>> Devil's Advocate: If posts were not removed from OE (in its current >>>> design >>>> state) when they were removed from the server and a heavy >>>> newsgroup user never deleted any posts manually, consider how >>>> bloated and ripe for corruption the message store would become >>>> over time! >>> >>> How true. There is still the 2GB maximum file size for the .dbx >>> files used by OE. That means you cannot store more than 2GB worth >>> of headers and bodies in a .dbx file for a newsgroup. Exceeding >>> that threshold results in a corrupted .dbx file. So with NNTP >>> servers with extreme retention intervals and with a user that >>> downloads all headers and also all their bodies then it becomes >>> more likely the 2GB threshold gets exceeded. >> >> So you're saying that the software isn't intelligent enough to just >> say: "Hey, you've reached the limit. Can't download anymore. Would >> you like me to clear some messages for you"? Instead it has to >> automatically delete messages, just to avoid the 2 GB limit??? >> Ridiculous! >> >> For what it's worth, all of my newsgroup DBXs are less than 10 MB! >> Not even anywhere close to 2 GB!!!!! >> >> And, again, if it ever did come close, a simple message prompting to >> delete old messages would be fine (similar to what Windows does when >> your hard drive gets near capacity). > > There is no "high water" alert for when you approach or exceed the > size of the .dbx file. After all, just one post download that > includes a huge file could enlarge your 10MB .dbx file to past the > 2GB boundary. I wouldn't doubt that there are some huge files in the > binary newsgroups, like for videos (e.g., movies). Even if they are > split up into multiple posts and you use OE's Combine and Decode, one > post sliced up into several posts to recompile the file could chew up > a lot of disk space in a big hurry. > > OE is a dead product. Has been since 2002. Don't expect any > functional changes to an unsupported product. Won't happen. No > point in beating a dead horse. Either continue using OE if it works > for you or switch to something else. However, that won't solve your > "syncrhonization" complaint regarding the NNTP server expiring > articles (removing them) and your newsreader staying in sync with > what articles have been removed. > > I can't speak positively for all newsreaders but the half dozen, or > more, that I've trialed all do this. You need move the posts into > your own separate store. In OE, that's just another folder separate > of the one under the news server folder tree. You will need to > download the bodies for all those archived posts as obviously if you > just download headers because it won't be on the server when you > later want to read the post. That means a LOT more downloading; > i.e., you will have to download the bodies for all posts in all the > subscribed newsgroups rather than just those that you choose to read > as you peruse the newsgroups. This will fill up the .dbx files a lot > faster. > > If you switch to Windows Live Mail, you might ask in those newsgroups > if there is a limit. WLM doesn't use a single .dbx file to hold the > contents of posts in a newsgroup (one .dbx file per newsgroup). > Instead WLM scatters folders under your %userprofile% for each > newsgroup and each e-mail or post is a separate file. So WLM is > saving the items in the file system rather than in a file. There is > an index file to keep track of what item is in what folder object > within WLM. I don't know if there are problems with indexing or > total item counts in the index file. I personally do not like WLM > creating all the folders and files on my drive. You can ask in the > following group if there are any size maximums per newgroup or per > news server: > > microsoft.public.windows.live.mail.desktop > > Even if the message store was dynamically expanded so it could be an > infinite size (up to consuming all the free space on your drives), > more items to hold and index means a slower performing newsreader. > You need to trim down your stored posts, especially for those with > bodies, to keep your newsreader responsive. Would you want to wait > many minutes, or perhaps much longer for a huge archive, to access a > newsgroup? You see a lot of users trying to emulate Google Groups to > archive all those old posts?
From: Gerry on 31 Jan 2009 04:38 Robert >> Also, what's the point of having a "Delete news messages X days >> after being downloaded" if OE is just going to delete them anyway, >> regardless of the setting. Again, doesn't make sense. > > > Makes perfect sense if someone only wants to keep a weeks worth > of posts in his cache instead of a much larger number that the server > might support. Your comment is correct . It was logical. It was also part of one of the most disastrous and problematic features of Outlook Express. Compacting. Checking this feature was blamed for countless losses of messages. Automatic compacting was abandoned by users in favour of manual compacting Offline. The changes made to automatic compacting not so long ago improved the situation but did not totally resolve the problem. Manual compacting before automatic compacting is triggered remains the safest option. The option to "Delete news messages X days after being downloaded" should have been removed when the other changes were made. -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert Aldwinckle wrote: > "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:mEAgl.16535$c45.7806(a)nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >> Again, I have my synchronization settings set to "No >> synchronization." > > > If you never use a synchronize command the synchronization settings > are meaningless to you. > > >> And I remember my headers used to stay indefinitely. > > > That has nothing to do with a synchronization command. > It depends on what the NNTP server is telling OE in its headers. > If you had headers staying indefinitely it just means that the > server wasn't changing the start number in its 211 replies > to a group command. > > > ... >> So what's the point of having a synchronization setting of "no >> synchronization" if OE is going to synchronize anyway? > > > Don't confuse two different results with two different actions. ; ) > > >> Doesn't make sense. > > > It does make sense. Apart from differences only available by using > a synchronize command the main thing that you need to be aware of > is the Get 300 headers... option and the fact that its value is used > to do an automatic Get Next 300... every time you enter a newsgroup > when > you are in a Working Online state. If you don't want that to > happen, > either don't enter that newsgroup or enter it with Work Offline set. > If you don't have the Get next 300... option checked the automatic > Get next done for you has the equivalent effect of a Synchronize > Newsgroup command done while the Synchronize settings are > Headers Only. > > >> And, like I said, didn't used to be that way. I remember a point >> where OE would keep downloaded headers indefinitely. > > > Was this with a different NNTP server? In any case servers change > how they act over time and they may also be set up to serve different > newsgroups differently. > > >> >> Also, what's the point of having a "Delete news messages X days >> after being downloaded" if OE is just going to delete them anyway, >> regardless of the setting. Again, doesn't make sense. > > > Makes perfect sense if someone only wants to keep a weeks worth > of posts in his cache instead of a much larger number that the server > might support. > > > HTH > > Robert Aldwinckle > ---
From: Steve Cochran on 31 Jan 2009 08:37 You are just feeding the troll. steve "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:PGKgl.19989$ZP4.13826(a)nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com... >> These resistant pogues couldn't get their noodles around that one >> >> Keep OE = Outlook EXPRESS. >> >> Don't Bloat It. >> > > This "pogue" believes he's intelligent enough to be able to manage his own > software without being forced to lose messages every time they scroll off > the server. Face it: this is a glitch, a flaw. You're trying to justify it > with some nonsense about keeping OE lean and mean; but the bottom line is > that it doesn't make any sense to delete messages against the user's will. > > Imagine if OE did that on the mail side. Why not keep that "lean and mean" > as well? > > Obviously your argument is ridiculous. >
From: Steve Cochran on 31 Jan 2009 08:37 MS (1998-2006): "There is no problem with the OE message store." There was no recognition that OE was not scaleable. That is not a reason for the "current state". steve "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:%23lVZEIvgJHA.4220(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Devil's Advocate: If posts were not removed from OE (in its current design > state) when they were removed from the server and a heavy newsgroup user > never deleted any posts manually, consider how bloated and ripe for > corruption the message store would become over time! > -- > ~PA� > > Steve Cochran wrote: >> It never made sense and its been a problem since OE4. It won't be fixed, >> so >> if you wish to keep NG messages, you have to copy them to local folders. >> That is the only way. People complained about this for many years and MS >> just ignored them. >> >> steve >> >> "Neil" <nrgins(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:mEAgl.16535$c45.7806(a)nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> >>> "VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message >>> news:glu9j6$ph5$1(a)news.motzarella.org... >>>> Bruce Hagen wrote: >>>> >>>>> News servers only keep posts for a period of time. Each server is >>>>> different. >>>>> MSNews keeps them for 90 days. Some servers keep them longer, some >>>>> only >>>>> for >>>>> a few days. >>>>> >>>>> If you want to keep posts indefinitely, copy them to an OE local >>>>> folder. >>>>> >>>>> Also, make sure that in View | Current View, you have Show All >>>>> Messages >>>>> and >>>>> Group messages By Conversation checked and nothing else. >>>> >>>> The reason regarding Bruce's reply is that OE remains in sync with the >>>> NNTP server. If the NNTP server expires and drops a post then so, too, >>>> will OE. You need to move items out of the newsgroups folder in OE if >>>> you don't want them to get synchronized (i.e., deleted in OE after the >>>> NNTP server deleted them). >>> >>> Again, I have my synchronization settings set to "No synchronization." >>> And >>> I remember my headers used to stay indefinitely. Once a header was >>> downloaded, it would just stay in the folder. If I hadn't gotten the >>> body >>> of a message, and it scrolled off the server, then, yeah, it was too >>> late >>> (and when I tried to get that expired text, OE would show the header in >>> strikethrough text; but the header would still be there). >>> >>> So what's the point of having a synchronization setting of "no >>> synchronization" if OE is going to synchronize anyway? Doesn't make >>> sense. >>> And, like I said, didn't used to be that way. I remember a point where >>> OE >>> would keep downloaded headers indefinitely. >>> >>> Also, what's the point of having a "Delete news messages X days after >>> being downloaded" if OE is just going to delete them anyway, regardless >>> of >>> the setting. Again, doesn't make sense. >
From: Neil on 31 Jan 2009 10:08
"D. Spencer Hines" <panther(a)excelsior.com> wrote in message news:u8HP87ygJHA.4932(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > This pogue obviously doesn't understand the architecture of Outlook > Express, designed by Software Geniuses Of Their Day, within the hardware > constraints they faced -- which has already been explained here. > > Matthew 7:6. How incredibly self-righteous and ignorant of you! :-) I'm not surprised. Isaiah 6:9 |