 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan schrieb:
> On 08/03/09 23:24, clipka wrote:
>> Turned out that migrating my old e-mails archive and address book wasn't
>> as straightforward as I had hoped (how stupid is this: You can't import
>> from Outlook .pst files unless Outlook is installed); fortunately, my
>
> The last time I used Outlook (Express) was way too long ago.
> Reading your post, I can tell they didn't really improve it much.
> Perhaps they even made it worse, as in those days you could read
> newsgroups with it (or so I recall).
>
Outlook and Outlook Express are whole different beasts. The only thing
they have in common is that "Outlook" in the name.
> Not all clients support import from Outlook (and why should they?
> Almost all mail readers store email using open formats).
Well, I always suspected they might, perhaps, want me to use their
product. That, however, includes me leaving my old e-mail app behind;
if there's a clean path to make sure I don't have to leave all the
e-mails behind as well, that makes it a lot easier.
(Then again, maybe my initial axiom is a misconception already, and they
just write those programs for the fun of it; in that case, sure - why
should an e-mail client - even a "big player" - be able to import from
competitors' products. To the contrary: After all, isn't it the Outlook
users' fault that they're not using something better anyway? So let them
stay in suffering. Yeah, they don't deserve otherwise... that'll teach
them a lesson... :-( / ;-) / :-P)
> The simplest solution if they had IMAP and not too much email was to
> put all the email on the server, and redownload it using the new client.
Does this preserve information such as message timestamps?
>> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
>
> (Vomits).
>
Why? Firefox no good either??? Or did you just have something bad for lunch?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As for your complaint, sorry: No sympathies. Of all the mail readers
> I've used, Outlook was the *only* one that did not use a standard format
> for storing emails.
Possibly true for you. Certainly not for others of us.
Solaris mail. GMail. Lotus Notes. Lots of examples.
> There's simply no excuse for it,
Sure there is. They store more than email in the email.
> The "other" solution was to install TB, have it import it, and then
> just take the files from TB, which, like almost all mail readers, stores
> stuff in a sane format.
Not that I'm arguing those other formats are *better*. But there are reasons
for them to be non-standard.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 15:36, clipka wrote:
>> The simplest solution if they had IMAP and not too much email was to
>> put all the email on the server, and redownload it using the new client.
> Does this preserve information such as message timestamps?
I believe it should.
>>> (Next thing on the agenda: Replace IE with Firefox...?)
>>
>> (Vomits).
>>
> Why? Firefox no good either??? Or did you just have something bad for
> lunch?
Nah. IE sucks. Or it did the last time I used it (version 6).
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 16:53, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> As for your complaint, sorry: No sympathies. Of all the mail readers
>> I've used, Outlook was the *only* one that did not use a standard
>> format for storing emails.
>
> Possibly true for you. Certainly not for others of us.
>
> Solaris mail. GMail. Lotus Notes. Lots of examples.
No idea about Solaris Mail.
As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it doesn't
matter too much what format online mail services use if they don't give
you access to the actual files.
Never used Lotus Notes. You're saying its format is nonstandard (and/or
nonopen) even now?
I've used some software on VAX. It was a simple text file - probably
mbox format.
I hacked the BBS QWK format to use email. And I think some services
used it as well. It's an open format, I believe. Ever since then,
everything was mbox - except Outlook Express. I'm thinking of switching
to gnus and using some of their weird backends (which I'm sure are
nonstandard, but at least they're open).
>> There's simply no excuse for it,
>
> Sure there is. They store more than email in the email.
Well, if they really need a feature that an open/standard format can't
handle, I can see the point. However, what's the excuse for not
providing a straightforward way to export to an open/standard format?
(Perhaps they do so now - not when I used it, though).
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it
> doesn't matter too much what format online mail services use if they
> don't give you access to the actual files.
And outlook is primarily an online mail service.
> Never used Lotus Notes. You're saying its format is nonstandard
> (and/or nonopen) even now?
It was last I looked, and for much the same reason that Outlook's is.
> I've used some software on VAX. It was a simple text file - probably
> mbox format.
There are three standard formats. One message per file, or a file with
^A^A^A^A\n before and after each message, or with "From " at the start of
the line marking a new message.
> Well, if they really need a feature that an open/standard format
> can't handle, I can see the point. However, what's the excuse for not
> providing a straightforward way to export to an open/standard format?
They did. It comes with Outlook. That's why you have to have outlook
installed to use it. Microsoft is going to have a hard time providing you
with a way to export proprietary formats to something more generic if you
don't install the software they give you to do it.
It's the same way you programatically export excel spreadsheets, word
documents, and email messages. It's called COM.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 17:44, Darren New wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> As for Gmail, I should have said "mail clients". Obviously, it doesn't
>> matter too much what format online mail services use if they don't
>> give you access to the actual files.
>
> And outlook is primarily an online mail service.
s/outlook/outlook express/
He was talking about Outlook, which I'll admit to not using. My
experience is with Express.
> They did. It comes with Outlook. That's why you have to have outlook
That's fine, then. The last Outlook Express I used didn't provide any
way to do so.
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> He was talking about Outlook, which I'll admit to not using. My
> experience is with Express.
I believe they share a file format, but I am not sure.
>> They did. It comes with Outlook. That's why you have to have outlook
>
> That's fine, then.
But that's what he's complaining about. He installed Windows, didn't install
the software that converts formats, and TB couldn't do the conversion.
> The last Outlook Express I used didn't provide
> any way to do so.
I went to MSDN and typed in "outlook express api" and got bunches of
documentation, including stuff like "get first message", "get next message",
and so on. Sometimes it's rough to find documentation on older products
online, and you have to pay money for it, but it's there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 08/04/09 18:27, Darren New wrote:
>> The last Outlook Express I used didn't provide any way to do so.
>
> I went to MSDN and typed in "outlook express api" and got bunches of
> documentation, including stuff like "get first message", "get next
> message", and so on. Sometimes it's rough to find documentation on older
> products online, and you have to pay money for it, but it's there.
There's a difference between a software feature and an API... Ordinary
users would like a File --> Export option.
At the time I left OE (2002), there were third party apps that
exported/converted them (perhaps some for free). Although I do recall I
used the IMAP route, despite the existence of said software. Perhaps
they weren't free, or I simply didn't trust free Windows software from
random folks on the 'net in those days...?
--
Brain damage is all in your head -- Karl Lehenbauer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> There's a difference between a software feature and an API...
> Ordinary users would like a File --> Export option.
It depends what you want to convert them into, but sure, many people might.
Then whoever is on the other end has to import them, and I imagine MS
doesn't want to provide the customer support lines for that.
Then the problem is, someone exports a bunch of messages, then re-imports
them. What's the right semantics? Copies of everything? What happens if you
import them into a machine with a different timezone? Should it adjust your
calendar entries? Or into a machine without the same address book? Should it
add the people in the messages into your address book? If you just provide
the standard MAPI hooks, then the importing application can do what it wants.
Granted, it's a little hard to defend not providing this, given there *are*
standard formats available. (At least, now there are. Given that MIME came
around several years after Outlook did, it's hard to say what the whole
format could be standardized.) But even now, if you want to export calendar
events, you're not going to be able to copy them between (say) Windows and
the Mac and GMail.
And, of course, it's a little easier for TB to support exporting messages
than Microsoft, given that TB isn't trying to make money. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I used to use Outlook with XP and IE7.
Then Outlook automatically "upgraded"
itself to OE, disabling several funcions that
I didn't use, so I never bothered trying to
re-install.
Not long after that IE7 started closing
without warning on some pages, so
I switched to Firefox (version 2 maybe?).
After that I noticed that the computer
wouldn't boot into safe mode, but booted
into normal mode fine...
so I backed everthing up more often, and
then the computer stopped running.
$
So now I have Vista and it came with
Windows Mail, which as far as I can tell
is very similar to OE, but the name change
makes me think that they've abandoned
some of the buggy code (maybe).
Newsgroups look fine in WM, and I'm using
Firefox 3.52 and everything looks to
be working smooth.
The management of Email contacts
changed, and WM imported my list of
blocked senders into the same directory
as family Email contacts, what a pain!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
