|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
November 5th 06, 06:22 AM
posted to microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general,microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress
|
|||
|
|||
? OE, SPAM: Rules & Tools (Raw Messages - RegEx)
"wierd" schreef in bericht news:... "wierd" schreef in bericht news:... "wierd" schreef in bericht news:... "wierd" schreef in bericht news:... "wierd" schreef in bericht news:... "wierd" schreef in bericht news:... "wierd" schreef in bericht ... "Steve Cochran" schreef in bericht ... "Alec S." @ wrote in message ... "Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM" wrote "Alec S." @ wrote in message "Alias~-" wrote in message Alec S. wrote: "Alias~-" wrote in message Have you tried Mozilla Thunderbird? Yes and I don't like it's storage method. I've checked various clients and OE is the only one that stores messages the way I like. What do you mean by "storage method"? The way it stores files on the disk. Some use a single massive file (eg, Outlook uses one large PST), some use tiny, individual files (eg, Thunderbird), and so on. Outlook Express uses plain text (mostly) files per folder (one DBX file per OE folder). This makes it easy to manage the files outside of OE (for example for backup/restore purposes). Also, they are easy to move, compress, etc. The DBX file structure is actually pretty bad. It's very prone to corruption resulting in message loss and requiring tools like DBXtract or DBXpress to retrieve messages. True, but I've had few problems with it. Storing messages in individual files is usually a bad technique. While it provides better access to individual messages and minimizes damage, it's highly inefficient. It increases storage waste, it increases access time, it increases memory usage, and a bevy of other problems. Performance and resource wise, the single file method (eg PST) is best (think database, WAD, etc.), but it makes corruption, etc. quite damaging. The DBX per-folder method is a good compromise, meeting them both halfway. You obviously never lost your messages. The issue is that of database bloat. Users let their mailboxes fill up and get bigger and bigger. That results in file corruption. File corruption results in loss of all the messages in the file. Its a disaster for those who experience such. Suppose you had a database of images. Some images are small and some are huge. Suppose you have thousands of images. Do you put all those images into the database file? No. You put links to the images in the database and then you store the images separately. Otherwise the database file gets unmanageable. It is better to give up a little bit of performance over losing data. The OE replacement in Vista goes back to storing each message as an individual file. Which is one reason I don't intend to upgrade. I don't like Live at all. He referred to Windows Mail in Vista. Nothing "Live" about it. It is OE renamed and retooled to some extent, and the messages are stored separately from the database as individual eml files. steve / -- Alec S. news/alec-synetech/cjb/net 
|
| Ads |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| ? OE, SPAM: Rules & Tools (Raw Messages - RegEx) | Alec S. | Outlook Express | 25 | January 22nd 07 06:16 PM |
| ? OE, SPAM: Rules & Tools (Raw Messages - RegEx) | wierd | Outlook Express | 0 | November 5th 06 06:22 AM |
| ? OE, SPAM: Rules & Tools (Raw Messages - RegEx) | wierd | Outlook Express | 0 | November 5th 06 06:21 AM |
| ? OE, SPAM: Rules & Tools (Raw Messages - RegEx) | wierd | Outlook Express | 0 | November 5th 06 06:21 AM |
| ? OE, SPAM: Rules & Tools (Raw Messages - RegEx) | wierd | Outlook Express | 0 | November 5th 06 06:20 AM |
Linear Mode
