Auto Archive not archiving

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 16/08/2007 19:49, Brian Tillman ha scritto:

I didn't say this. I said export them from OE. They go directly into
Outlook with no importing at all.

Uh. Sorry but I do not understand: you mean exporting from OE onto the
filesystem, just like when you drag&drop them, and then have a single
file for each mail and leave them like that? And how are you supposed to
read/search those old mails when you need, then? Does not sound very
comfortable...

because an import is a BIG modification. I certainly don't want to
import a couple of thousand older messages only to have autoarchive zip
them out from under me the very next time it runs.

Why not?
If the messages are older than the archive threshold *you* have set,
it's ok when Outlook archives them, especially because this does not
mean you are losing them forever: they are just being moved in an
archive folder/pst.
IMHO, importing all your mail from the last 4 years from OE to Outlook
is not like saying "ok, now let's start it all from scratch" (which
could mean that you want to leave your old mail behind OR that you want
to have all your old mails treated like they were new), but rather "ok,
let's switch mailer but bring all my old mail with me so that I can read
it all in a single place should I ever need it".

 

[Brian Tillman]

Uh. Sorry but I do not understand: you mean exporting from OE onto the
filesystem, just like when you drag&drop them, and then have a single
file for each mail and leave them like that?

Nope. When you have both Outlook and Outlook Express configured and
operational on a single PC, clicking File>Export>Messages in Outlook Express
will tell you that you're about to export to Outlook or Exchange then allow
you to specify either all or a a portion of your OE folders. Proceeding
from there sends those folders directly to Outlook (or Exchange) with no
intermediate file(s), recreating in Outlook the same folder structure as in
OE.

And how are you supposed
to read/search those old mails when you need, then? Does not sound
very comfortable...

They'll be right there in Outlook in the folders whose names are exactly
what they were in OE.

Why not?

Because if I didn't want them available, I wouldn't have moved them, and
since I did move them, I don't wnat them disappearing into some archive PST
that's visible in my folder list. Recently references data should NOT be
archived. Only data NOT referecnes for a while should be.

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 17/08/2007 23:22, Brian Tillman ha scritto:

Nope. When you have both Outlook and Outlook Express configured and
operational on a single PC, clicking File>Export>Messages in Outlook
Express will tell you that you're about to export to Outlook or Exchange

Oh, ok thanks, that's good to know. I never tried that one.

Because if I didn't want them available, I wouldn't have moved them, and
since I did move them, I don't wnat them disappearing into some archive
PST that's visible in my folder list. Recently references data should

Well, I see a contradiction between "disappearing" and "visible" in the
same sentence , but anyway, details apart, I suppose it's a matter of
tastes: most people I know who use email for serious work prefer to keep
all mail in a single application, including old mails which they might
need one day or another but do not want to have in the way everyday, so
an archive PST is the perfect place.

 

[Vanguard]

in message

Brian Tillman:

Oh, ok thanks, that's good to know. I never tried that one.


Well, I see a contradiction between "disappearing" and "visible" in
the same sentence , but anyway, details apart, I suppose it's a
matter of tastes: most people I know who use email for serious work
prefer to keep all mail in a single application, including old mails
which they might need one day or another but do not want to have in
the way everyday, so an archive PST is the perfect place.

I haven't found a way to force items to get auto-archived on a
different schedule than by the modified timestamp (because I have no
means to change the modified timestamp for the record in their
database). I may move items from 2006 into their own folder (which
changes the modified timestamp) and then auto-archiving won't work
until the number of days have past whereupon they become "old" items.

However, you can open the archive .pst in Outlook using File -> Open.
In fact, I always have my archive .pst file(s) opened in Outlook
because there have been many times when I have to continue the search
into old items. Once the archive .pst file is open in Outlook, you
can create and delete folders in the archive message store however you
want. That it is an archive .pst file is merely because that's how
you chose to use it. It could be a .pst file from some other instance
of Outlook for another user on the same or different host. With the
archive message store open in Outlook, you can select items in your
current message store and drag them into whatever folders you want in
your archive message store. In fact, if items got moved into your
archive .pst file that you want back in your current message store,
just drag them out of the archive store back to the current store.

You can even set auto-archive options on the archive message store,
like you move items over a year old from your current message store
into the archive folder and then configure auto-archiving in the
archive message store to move items out to yet another archive .pst
file that are, say, over 2 years old. You can daisy chain each
archive .pst file so each one contains progressively older items with
the last archive .pst file configured to permanently delete old items.
You could, for example, chain together 5 .pst files uses for archiving
to keep up to 6 years worth of e-mails (1 year for the current message
store, 2 years for the next one, 3 years for the next, and so on).
They don't even have to be .pst files in which auto-archiving was used
to put items in them. You can drag whatever items you want from one
message store into the other message store, and all within Outlook.
Maybe you have one .pst file used for old business mails and another
..pst file for old personal mails. The only caveat is that these other
..pst files must be opened in Outlook so you can actually use them (and
so auto-archving gets exercised as configured). Each time you open
another .pst file, you'll see another tree in the "folders" list where
the root node of that tree is the message store for that other .pst
file.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Well, I see a contradiction between "disappearing" and "visible" in
the same sentence ,

I meant to type "not visible".

but anyway, details apart, I suppose it's a
matter of tastes: most people I know who use email for serious work
prefer to keep all mail in a single application, including old mails
which they might need one day or another but do not want to have in
the way everyday, so an archive PST is the perfect place.

Oh, I don't disagree with you in any way on this, it's just that I don't
consider messsages that I've just got done manipulating "old". Apparently
you do.

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 18/08/2007 0:58, Brian Tillman ha scritto:

I meant to type "not visible".

Uhm, and why do you say that? Aren't archive PSTs usually visible in the
folder list, just under a different branch?

Oh, I don't disagree with you in any way on this, it's just that I don't
consider messsages that I've just got done manipulating "old".
Apparently you do.

Not exactly. The real difference is that I don't consider messages that
I've just imported as "manipulated" .

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 18/08/2007 0:26, Vanguard ha scritto:

fact, I always have my archive .pst file(s) opened in Outlook because
there have been many times when I have to continue the search into old
items. Once the archive .pst file is open in Outlook, you can create
and delete folders in the archive message store however you want. That
it is an archive .pst file is merely because that's how you chose to use
it. It could be a .pst file from some other instance of Outlook for

Indeed, this is the archive PST usage I've seen most. As I already
wrote, I don't use Outlook myself, but as far as I recall the people
with whom I work always have their archive folders shown in the folder
tree. That's why I wonder why Brian wrote that an archive PST would not
be visible, see my other post I just sent.

Based on my recent experience on Outlook 2003 for my friend, I even
think that the archive PST which Outlook creates the first time you use
the archive function is visible *by default* in the folder tree, being
automatically set as an additional data file in Outlook prefs.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Indeed, this is the archive PST usage I've seen most. As I already
wrote, I don't use Outlook myself, but as far as I recall the people
with whom I work always have their archive folders shown in the folder
tree. That's why I wonder why Brian wrote that an archive PST would
not be visible, see my other post I just sent.

I believe that, by default, when you set up autoarchive, the archive PST is
not displayed in the Folder List.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Uhm, and why do you say that? Aren't archive PSTs usually visible in
the folder list, just under a different branch?

Nope. Unless you open them specifically, they will not appear in the Folder
List.

Not exactly. The real difference is that I don't consider messages
that I've just imported as "manipulated" .

"Manipulated" means "acted or operated upon". Are you acting upon messages
when you import them?

Well, I won't pursue this any further, and it's not important for us to
agree on whether or not importing should change any time stamps. The
reality is that it does.

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 20/08/2007 16:01, Brian Tillman ha scritto:

Nope. Unless you open them specifically, they will not appear in the
Folder List.

Ok. So maybe on my friend's computer the archive PST appeared
automatically because I launched the archive process manually
immediately after importing messages.

"Manipulated" means "acted or operated upon". Are you acting upon
messages when you import them?

No.
Please try to leave out your technical attitude for a minute. I'm 100%
sure that the "common user" attitude when importing old mails from OE to
Outlook is that they want them to stay "old" just like they were in OE.
If the problem is that this way old mails would soon disappear at the
first automatic archive process, then there are better ways to solve it:
deactivate automatic archiving by default, or issue a warning when
importing mails, or do archive but issue a warning the first time it
happens, etc.

Well, I won't pursue this any further, and it's not important for us to
agree on whether or not importing should change any time stamps. The
reality is that it does.

And reality is that this behaviour confused at least two users in just a
few days (me and RH) .
I was not trying to reach any agreement, I was just observing that it is
an unexpected behaviour for common users.

 

[Brian Tillman]

No.

Yes. Importing is an action and you are moving the mesages from one data
store (in a completely separate application) to another and that is a
significant action. The entire format of the message is regenerated.

Please try to leave out your technical attitude for a minute.

When dealing with computer software, that's the only attitude I find that
works all the time. What you (or I) would like it to do or what the "common
user attitude" is has no relevance. While you may want imported messages to
"stay old", the fact is they do not. I do agree that the received date, at
least shouldn't change, but I think it is appropriate that the modified date
changes and it is the modified date that determines whether or not
autoarchive will process the messages.

And reality is that this behaviour confused at least two users in just a
few days (me and RH) .

But that doesn't, de facto, make the behavior incorrect. It means your
understanding of the behavior is incomplete. Certainly not a crime and
that's why there are groups like this: so we can read and increase our
understanding.

I was not trying to reach any agreement, I was just observing that it is
an unexpected behaviour for common users.

I consider myself a common user (I have no formal Outlook training) and it
certainly is not unexpected for me. I would have been surprised if it
DIDN'T happen.

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 21/08/2007 15:23, Brian Tillman ha scritto:

(I thought you were not going to pursue this any further...)

Yes. Importing is an action and you are moving the mesages from one

I already wrote that I do not consider imported messages as
"manipulated"/"acted upon", and I'll now add that I'm sure this is also
the idea of non-technical users with whom I have contact for technical
support reasons. No way I'll change my mind, sorry (and I do not mean
to change yours).

When dealing with computer software, that's the only attitude I find
that works all the time.

Yes, because most software is badly written, and you are not able to
justify its behaviour without disentangling its technical innards. I'm a
techie too, and I feel at ease with computers, but I'm not happy with
it: I would like *everyone*, including my mom, to feel at ease with them.
Trying to justify bad software behaviour asserting that humans should
change their attitude will not help computers get any better. Software
must be made to be more easily understandable, and sometimes it's as
easy as adding a warning message.

that the received date, at least shouldn't change, but I think it is
appropriate that the modified date changes and it is the modified date
that determines whether or not autoarchive will process the messages.

Maybe it is - although I still do not agree. But, even if it is, the
problem is that this might cause an unexpected behaviour, so some
informative message in the software should be added.

I consider myself a common user

Are you kidding, MVP?

 

[Guest]

I'm very glad I found this thread. It was like a blessing to see it on the
home page for Exchange/Outlook newsgroups as one of the most active threads.
I came here looking for answer for a verys similar problem with exception in
my case I was importing Outlook 2003 PSTs into Exchange 2007 mailboxes.

I got my answer why Outlook wasn't archiving as I was expecting. I think I
do agree with Marco. I work with close to 200 users and everyone I know
manages their Outlook mail as far as timeline goes anyway based on
receive/sent date. Basically in chronological order of events and not when
the items were referenced.

Furthermore I believe Outlook misleads you when it comes to Archive
interface. It tells you that it will archive items "older" than XX/XX/XX but
doesn't tell you based on what time stamp this condition is based. So, if you
are like me a user with a chronological mindset you expect the items to be
archived based on their receive or sent date not modified date. What is even
more confusing that often enough modified date will match received date. So
if you used archive features for years you really do not expect this.

Anyway, thank you all for clarifying this.

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 24/08/2007 20:46, sov2000 ha scritto:

I'm very glad I found this thread. It was like a blessing to see it on the
home page for Exchange/Outlook newsgroups as one of the most active threads.

Glad to know that time spent typing in this thread was not entirely
wasted .

archived based on their receive or sent date not modified date. What is even
more confusing that often enough modified date will match received date. So
if you used archive features for years you really do not expect this.

Indeed.

 

[Marco De Vitis]

Il 21/08/2007 11:48, Marco De Vitis ha scritto:

And reality is that this behaviour confused at least two users in just a
few days (me and RH) .

Just for the record, make them five - at least: there's sov2000 in this
same thread, then "agentguerry" in "Archiving not getting emails" and
"Rustom" who has a strictly related problem in "Change the Modified
Date". I also read yet another thread - can't remember the subject now -
about archiving problems which might have been due to the same Outlook
behaviour, but as far as I recall the answers given by the original
poster didn't make it clear.