OL Address Book-Contacts Puzzle

[Joe McGuire]

I figured out how to have my Contacts show up as an address book (I would
have thought using your Contacts for that purpose was so obvious as to be
the default setting--what do you need 'em for if not for sending e-mail)
when I click on "To" when composing e-mail. However I seem to have TWO
address books. The default address book has just one Contact. It seems
like a phantom. The other has all my 896 Contacts. Is there a way to get
rid of the phantom address book? Thanks!

 

[Brian Tillman]

I figured out how to have my Contacts show up as an address book (I
would have thought using your Contacts for that purpose was so
obvious as to be the default setting--what do you need 'em for if not
for sending e-mail) when I click on "To" when composing e-mail. However I
seem to have TWO address books. The default address book
has just one Contact. It seems like a phantom. The other has all my
896 Contacts. Is there a way to get rid of the phantom address book?

If the "Show names from the" drop-down contain to folders, each of which
contain at least one entry, then you must have two contacts folders. What
type(s) of account(s) are you using? What version of Outlook?

 

[Joe McGuire]

Thanks. I am using OL 2003. I realize that the 1-Contact address book
means I have a second addressbook. But where is it? In OL I can see only a
single Contacts folder, with no sub-folders.I would happily delete the rogue
address book (or COntacts folder) if I could find it.

The accounts are both POP3 e-mail accounts, although I am about to reduce
that to a single POP3 account.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Thanks. I am using OL 2003. I realize that the 1-Contact address
book means I have a second addressbook.

I never said that. Outlook doesn't have ANY address books. It has Contacts
folders. The "address book" is just a vew of your Contacts folders.

But where is it?

Click the "Contacts" button at the bottom of the Navigation page. How many
contacts folders do you see?

 

[Joe McGuire]

"Click the "Contacts" button at the bottom of the Navigation page. How many
contacts folders do you see?"

If you mean the Navigation Pane I see only a single Contacts folder after
clicking on Contacts. It contains 895 items. (This is in my office PC, not
my home computer)

Is it possible OL is pulling information from some other PST file? FWIW my
"Personal Folder" in OL is tied to "JWM KJMS Folders.pst", the name
reflecting that when I installed OL on my new computer I was bringing OL
data from my old firm. I have an archive folder named "JWM Archive.pst".
Both are backed up, i.e., copied to another folder with OL closed. The file
info reflects JWM KJMS Folders.pst was closed/saved a few minutes ago when I
last closed OL. The file size is 1,392,785kb. There are other PST folders
in that same directory (the default location for PST files) with "saved"
dates from last week when I last had those files open, so I assume OL left
them alone. But there is another PST file with almost the same "saved" time
and date as JWM KJMS Folders.pst. It is called "Outlook.pst" which I think
is the usual default name for the OL data file. Its size is only 15,393kb
and apparently was saved about an hour earlier today.

Here's what I tried as an experiment: I closed OL and renamed Outlook.pst
to Outlook1.pst and reopened OL. With the Inbox open I clicked New to
compose an e-mail message. I clicked "To" and got this error message: "The
address list could not be displayed. The Contacts folder associated with
wihs address list could not be opened; it may have been moved or deleted . .
.." I clicked OK and the Select Names window opened. In "Show names from
the...", "Contacts" was displayed but with names or addresses. I then
clicked on the dropdown list "Show names from the...". Two instances of
"Contacts" appear. The first had no Contacts, of course. I clicked on the
second one and there are my 895 Contacts.

Next I closed OL and renamed Outlook1.pst back to Outlook.pst. Then I
reopened OL and did the same thing to start composing an e-mail message.
Now when I click on "To" there is my lonely one-man address list. Actually,
he also appears in my 895 Contacts. I have no idea how I ended up with him
in the one-man contacts or address list.

So I think there is something fishy about Outlook.pst or something therein.
Any suggestions?

 

[Brian Tillman]

Here's what I tried as an experiment: I closed OL and renamed
Outlook.pst to Outlook1.pst and reopened OL. ....snip...
Next I closed OL and renamed Outlook1.pst back to Outlook.pst.

This process has damaged your mail profile. You should never manipulate in
Windows PSTs that are part of an Outlook mail profile. I think your best
bet is to create a new mail profile.

 

[Joe McGuire]

Yikes--This software is positively dangerous! Seems to me it was damaged
already with the mystery one-man addressbook/PST but I unwittingly made it
worse by trying to fix it. I could have lived with the stupidity of a
one-man address book. (Every so often I need a reminder why I love
Microsoft and quietly hope for something better--but enough ranting). If I
am creating a new OL profile, can I rename my PSTs before doing so? Since
nearly all the stuff in my PST was from a computer running OL 2002
w/Exchange, do I have to do anything special with the PST now that I am
using OL 2003?

 

[Brian Tillman]

If I am creating a new OL profile, can
I rename my PSTs before doing so?

Why? Just point your new profile at the PST you wish to use.

Since nearly all the stuff in my
PST was from a computer running OL 2002 w/Exchange, do I have to do
anything special with the PST now that I am using OL 2003?

You can use any PST in Outlook 2003, but you'd be best served by creating a
new PST in Unicode format because ANSI PSTs (which OL 2002 and earlier
created) have a 2GB limit whereas Unicode PSTs (the default for OL
2003/2007) do not have that limit.

For now, just create your new mail profile, configure it to use the PST you
wish, then if you want to convert to a Unicode PST format and can't figure
out how, see this:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.outlook.general/msg/fe4f6aecf94baeff

 

[Joe McGuire]

Thanks! I want to rename my PST file only because the current name reflects
that most of the stuff came from my old firm, as in "JWM KJMS Folders.pst,"
with "KJMS" referring to my old firm. The name was useful when I moved the
file(s) over to keep them separate from other PSTs.

I am confused about the Unicode thing. The pre-move e-mail (along with
Contacts, Calendar, and Tasks) was running in OL 2002 w/ Exchange Server.
Now I am using OL 2003 (w/o Exchange Server). Since, as you say, the older
files will work fine on OL 2003, it sounds like there is no reason for me to
convert to the Unicode format. Am I understanding you correctly or am I
missing some key point? Thanks again!

 

[Brian Tillman]

Thanks! I want to rename my PST file only because the current name
reflects that most of the stuff came from my old firm, as in "JWM
KJMS Folders.pst," with "KJMS" referring to my old firm. The name
was useful when I moved the file(s) over to keep them separate from
other PSTs.

As long as Outlook is closed and you are creating a new profile to use, you
can rename the PST prior to adding it to the new profile.

I am confused about the Unicode thing. The pre-move e-mail (along
with Contacts, Calendar, and Tasks) was running in OL 2002 w/
Exchange Server. Now I am using OL 2003 (w/o Exchange Server). Since, as
you say, the older files will work fine on OL 2003, it
sounds like there is no reason for me to convert to the Unicode
format. Am I understanding you correctly or am I missing some key
point? Thanks again!

If you ever think your PST will exceed 2GB, you will need to change PST
formats. If you don't think you will get close to that, then there's no
real reason to change formats.

 

[Joe McGuire]

Each of my two PST files, the "current" one and the "archive," is safely
under 2GB (somewhere around 1/3 to 1.7GB each respectively). I plan to keep
the current PST much smaller by using AutoArchive. But assuming that the
sum of the GBs in the two files will remain the same (or about the same)
both before and after archiving, the archive file will almost surely exceed
2GB. I take it that I must therefore change the format for that file after
getting the new profile running. Does the formatting for the "current" PST
file have to be the same as its AutoArchive folder? Is there any limit to
the size of the archive? If so, I'll have to come up with a way to break
the archive up into smaller parts.

Also, there is another problem with my two folders/PST files: a
chronological overlap. The time span in the "current" folder goes back to
2004 (In the course of moving the data out of my old firm there were two
separate archive files due to some problem we had with the Terminal Server;
as I recall I ended up combining all those files into a single folder,
running AutoArchive and thus ending up with a "current" and "archive"
folder.) The "archive" folder, however, contains e-mails from 2002 through
2006, thus the overlap overlap. I have not determined if there are any
duplicates between the two folders. I would probably not keep more than 1
year's stuff in the "current" folder and put everytihng else in the archive.
Can I designate my present archive as the AutoArchive destination and run
AutoArchive accordingly?

 

[Brian Tillman]

Each of my two PST files, the "current" one and the "archive," is
safely under 2GB (somewhere around 1/3 to 1.7GB each respectively).

I have seen problems when the PST exceeds 1.5GB. 1.7GB is large enough to
make me uncomfortable with it. If you don't intend to ever add anything to
that one, it will probably be OK, but if you do add stuff to it, I think you
may find trouble.

I plan to keep the current PST much smaller by using AutoArchive. But
assuming that the sum of the GBs in the two files will remain the
same (or about the same) both before and after archiving, the archive
file will almost surely exceed 2GB. I take it that I must therefore
change the format for that file after getting the new profile
running.

Just don't use the old archive. Let Outlook create a new one on its own.
It will have the correct format when it gets created.

Does the formatting for the "current" PST file have to be
the same as its AutoArchive folder?
No.

Is there any limit to the size of the archive? If so, I'll have to come
up with a way to break the
archive up into smaller parts.

Outlook will tell you when the file exceeds the max size, but by then it may
be too late.

Also, there is another problem with my two folders/PST files: a
chronological overlap. The time span in the "current" folder goes
back to 2004 (In the course of moving the data out of my old firm
there were two separate archive files due to some problem we had with
the Terminal Server; as I recall I ended up combining all those files
into a single folder, running AutoArchive and thus ending up with a
"current" and "archive" folder.) The "archive" folder, however,
contains e-mails from 2002 through 2006, thus the overlap overlap. I
have not determined if there are any duplicates between the two
folders. I would probably not keep more than 1 year's stuff in the
"current" folder and put everytihng else in the archive.

I don't see the overlap as a problem. When AutoArchive runs and acts upon
an item, it is moved from the main PST to the archive PST, so there should
be no duplicates, under normal conditions.

Can I designate my present archive as the AutoArchive destination and run
AutoArchive accordingly?

Sure. If you've used import at all, though, chances are that nothing will
move. AutoArchive works upon the modified date of an item. Importing
modifies items.

 

[Joe McGuire]

Thanks. After doing everything OL at first threw up a bunch of error
messages basically saying it could not find the old pst file and then
shutting down. But after rebooting the computer everything finally worked!

 

[Joe McGuire]

Sure. If you've used import at all, though, chances are that nothing will

move. AutoArchive works upon the modified date of an item. Importing
modifies items.

I see the problem. My main/current Inbox has stuff going as far back as
2004 even though AutoArchive is set for 4 months. The stuff must have
gotten imported somewhere along the way. If I cannot use AutoArchive to
move the old stuff out can I move that stuff manually to archive.pst within
OL?

 

[Brian Tillman]

I see the problem. My main/current Inbox has stuff going as far back
as 2004 even though AutoArchive is set for 4 months. The stuff must
have gotten imported somewhere along the way. If I cannot use
AutoArchive to move the old stuff out can I move that stuff manually
to archive.pst within OL?

Absolutely. Make sure the Archive PST folders are showing in your Folder
List, either by opening the archive PST with File>Open>Outlook Data File or
by clicking Tools>Options>Other>AutoArchive and checking the box labeled
"Show archive folder in folder list". Select the items you wish to move and
drag the selection to the corresponding archive PST.

 

[Joe McGuire]

Excellent! Many thanks for your help, patience and dogged persistence!

[Not-exactly-a-rant: One does get to wondering what some whizbang propeller
head at Redmond was thinking when he or she decided that whenever you import
old stuff into Outlook you want to modify each item and turn it from old
into new--at least for AutoArchive purposes. And when it comes to archiving
I would think I am not the only user who would consider the most important
"date" information about e-mail to be not the date it was last modified in
some fashion, whether technical or substantive, but the the date sent or
received (usually the same). And when it comes to Calendar items the actual
calendar date probably means more than the date modified. But then, that
happens a lot with Microsoft--good software but sometimes with unanticipated
(usually goofy but occasionally quite serious) consequences to things that
looked quite simple and intuitive.]

 

[Brian Tillman]

[Not-exactly-a-rant: One does get to wondering what some whizbang
propeller head at Redmond was thinking when he or she decided that
whenever you import old stuff into Outlook you want to modify each
item and turn it from old into new--at least for AutoArchive
purposes.

See, I think that's the CORRECT approach. AutoArchive SHOULD work in the
modified date. In fact, I think that Outlook is remiss in how it handles
the modified date because moving a message from one folder to another
doesn't update the modified date and I think it should. ANY modification to
the message should update the date. If I've just manipulated a message, I
sure as heck don't want AutoArchive to whip it out from underneath me the
very next day, when clearly it is an important item or I wouldn't have just
modified it.

And when it comes to archiving I would think I am not the
only user who would consider the most important "date" information
about e-mail to be not the date it was last modified in some fashion,
whether technical or substantive, but the the date sent or received
(usually the same).

We'll disagree here, but my opionion is that we should be able to CHOOSE
which date we wish to use as the archiving criteria. Absent that choice,
though, the modified date is the only one that makes technical sense.

And when it comes to Calendar items the actual
calendar date probably means more than the date modified.

I can't imagine any situation where I'd have autoarchive enabled for my
calendar. I want items to remain until I delete them. And they do.

 

[Joe McGuire]

Hmm. Obviously this works well for you. I prefer a chronological record
when it comes to business and legal matters so there is more of a paper
(well, electronic) trail. But I agree it would be more helpful if OL
allowed you to select the basis for its archiving, i.e., date sent,
received, modified, etc.

You have a point about the Calendar. I am embarassed to admit I never gave
much thought to whether it makes sense to archive the Calendar. It doesn't
take up much memory at all. And if I need to look up something it will be
right there. Archiving the Inbox is almost obligatory since it can end up
taking up a huge amount of memory. Personally, I wish there was better
integration between OL and the rest of Office in terms of how to store
things. I can keep all the Word docs, Excel spread sheets and Power Points
that pertain to a particular business/legal matter together. E-mail is just
as important as those other things, yet there is no way in Office to keep
them with the other Office documents in their native format. Of course you
can go to the trouble of saving then in another format (*.doc, *.txt, *.msg,
*.html etc.) but you can no longer see them arrayed as you would in OL. (I
believe you can buy some proprietary software that purports to let you keep
your OL e-mails with your other Office documents and view them exactly as if
you had them in OL)

I want to tell you again how much I appreciate your help and kindness!.

[Not-exactly-a-rant: One does get to wondering what some whizbang
propeller head at Redmond was thinking when he or she decided that
whenever you import old stuff into Outlook you want to modify each
item and turn it from old into new--at least for AutoArchive
purposes.

See, I think that's the CORRECT approach. AutoArchive SHOULD work in the
modified date. In fact, I think that Outlook is remiss in how it handles
the modified date because moving a message from one folder to another
doesn't update the modified date and I think it should. ANY modification
to the message should update the date. If I've just manipulated a
message, I sure as heck don't want AutoArchive to whip it out from
underneath me the very next day, when clearly it is an important item or I
wouldn't have just modified it.

And when it comes to archiving I would think I am not the
only user who would consider the most important "date" information
about e-mail to be not the date it was last modified in some fashion,
whether technical or substantive, but the the date sent or received
(usually the same).

We'll disagree here, but my opionion is that we should be able to CHOOSE
which date we wish to use as the archiving criteria. Absent that choice,
though, the modified date is the only one that makes technical sense.

And when it comes to Calendar items the actual
calendar date probably means more than the date modified.

I can't imagine any situation where I'd have autoarchive enabled for my
calendar. I want items to remain until I delete them. And they do.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Hmm. Obviously this works well for you. I prefer a chronological
record when it comes to business and legal matters so there is more
of a paper (well, electronic) trail.

Since email is changeable (you can edit any email you receive to say
anything you want) except in an IRM (Information Rights Management)
environment, it's impossible to trust for legal reasons. It's useful for
history and memory, though.

I want to tell you again how much I appreciate your help and
kindness!.

My pleasure.