Prev: how can i forward an e-mail as an attachment?
Next: Print an appointment twice on one page
From: Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] on 26 May 2010 16:44
"Rojo Habe" <noem(a)iladdress.com> wrote in message
news:usnzi4Q$KHA.1700(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Thanks once again for your advice. Although Virgin Media are now using
> Gmail as their email service I can't actually log in at Gmail.com; I still
> have to log onto viginmedia.com and it's evident there are subtle
> differences in their implementation. The settings you mentioned are
> avialble, however, and are enabled by default. For some reason appending
> "recent:" to the user name does seem necessary for proper operation
> otherwise things seem to vanish after you've read them and logged out (on
> any particular client). This seems unique to Virgin Media but once you get
> the hang of it...
>
> Anyway, I'm pretty much sorted now, thanks (using POP3). For more details
> see my reply to spamlet's post.

How odd. I guess Virgin Media is taking the same type of path that AT&T and
British Telecom took and farming our its mail service (to Yahoo! in the AT&T
and BT cases). At least with Yahoo I can log into the normal online Yahoo
portal with my AT&T credentials and see the mailbox.

Well, if you're satisfied, so am I.
--
Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

From: spamlet on 27 May 2010 17:26

"Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]" <tillman1952(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23I8GuVQ$KHA.4308(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "spamlet" <spam.morespam(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:u0d%23VzN$KHA.5044(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> Have I got this right: If we upgrade to 2007 (I assume 2010 won't work
>> with our XPPro SP3):
>
> Outlook 2010 works just fine on WIndows XP Pro.
>
>> a) messages sent from Outlook will appear in sent items on both client
>> and server
>> b) messages composed and sent from the web interface will appear in sent
>> items in Outlook as well as on server
>> c) messages in sent items on server will remain in sent items on server
>> until *we* decide to move or delete them
>
> This three are true.
>
>> d) messages deleted from sent items/inbox on server will *not* disappear
>> from sent items/inbox on client.
>
> This is false. IMAP is a two-way protocol. Whatever happens on the
> server gets synched with the client and vice versa at each send/receive.
> Delete something in either place and the other will see it gone, albeit
> with a delay, usually. Even if you were to connect to the IMAP mailbox
> from another PC using, say, Thunderbird as the IMAP client, if you delete
> something from Sent Items, Outlook will see it go away at its next
> send/receive.
>
>> I suspect the last point might be the difficult one, even if the rest are
>> correct. We would probably still need to transfer sent items to a local
>> 'folder' to be sure of keeping a record.
>
> Yes.

Thanks. May as well stick with pop for now then.

>
>> The 'folderness' of folders on the other hand is semantics that is
>> missing my point. In your terms: if 'The Sent Items folder is as real
>> as any other folder in Outlook', then the sent items folder of Outlook
>> Express is an order of magnitude 'realer' than the one in Outlook.
>
> Hardly. It's just a file named Sent Items.dbx with a pointer to it in
> Folder.dbx.

'Hardly' yourself: it is infinitely smaller with a tiny fraction of the
losable stuff that is 'just' in Outlook.pst!


>> In Outlook, a slight glitch with ntuser.dat and you lose the lot and have
>> a major recovery problem.
>
> Glitches in NTUSER.DAT won't touch anything in a PST. What will happen,
> though, is that the association between the PST and the IMAP account will
> be broken and it's problematic with an IMAP PST. If you copy the items
> you don't wish to lose to a local PST and make periodic backups (simply by
> copying while Outlook is closed) of that PST, you're no more likely to
> lose anything from a PST than you are a DBX file. Profiles and PSTs are
> not synonymous.

But your average user will have no idea where his/her account has gone after
Outlook has kindly built them a new profile.

>
> The loss of an IMAP PST is far less catastrophic than, say, a PST fed by a
> POP account. The IMAP server contains the data still, unless you've
> deleted it, and you can blow away the PST completely and Outlook will
> simply rebuild it when you connect to the mailbox again.

Yes that is a positive, but then one you are committed to hundreds of
gigabites held somewhere on line you are a bit stuffed if you ever want to
move it or have your own record of it.


>> In OE individual dbx 'folders' can be damaged, but I've never had the
>> catastrophic loss that follows on a simple message that 'Outlook is
>> rebuilding your profile.' (Yes I have had 'compaction' errors, but the
>> recovery of relatively small dbxs is a whole lot easier than huge psts!)
>> Having experienced that once, I personally, would never use it again, and
>> it is a pain to have to be extra vigilant to see that my partner's
>> Outlook - on which her livelihood depends - is proofed against any
>> further such losses. (I still haven't recovered her 2007 'inbox' mail,
>> though, thankfully, Google Desktop, still 'remembers' it.)
>
> PST files are no more vulnerable that any other type of file, including
> DBX files. Backups are your weapon against data loss in all events. If
> your partner isn't doing backups, then your partner is saying that his
> data isn't important enough to worry about.
> --
> Brian Tillman [MVP-Outlook]

Nay it's muggins here that has to do all the back ups, which is why I get
pretty p'd when ISPs start shunting stuff around without me asking them to.
Especially when it means redownloading thousands of old messages and then
deleting them with a duplicates removal programme before I finally get at
the recent ones!

Anyhow, thanks for sharing the thread and filling me in on some IMAP stuff I
was unfamiliar with.

Cheers,

S


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: how can i forward an e-mail as an attachment?
Next: Print an appointment twice on one page