You are talking about two parallel systems for conducting searches.
Within WLMail, there is no real need to be able to search by date or
sender, because the Message list can easily be sorted to show the
desired results. Having WDS installed just makes it much quicker to
find a particular string in a message using the Find a message
function. WDS generates an index of all meaningful strings which
WLMail can then look the search string up in.
The WDS interface, on the other hand, is designed to search for file
properties (like date modified, subject, file type and all the other
things you can read about in Help). WLMail messages don't have many
indexable properties - really only a file name and a modified date,
which is what you'll see in the WDS interface. Why the filter is not
designed to index the MIME To:, From:, Date: and Subject: fields of
a mail message is a mystery, but I suppose someone has written or
will write an ifilter to achieve this. They are in the index anyway
and can thus be searched for without using advanced terms, although
irritatingly the Subject doesn't appear in the results.
Beware, too, of the Date field in searches: the date modified of an
email is the date and time when it was last stored in the file
system, not necessarily the date it was sent or received.
Maintaining a separate, duplicate message database in OE strikes me
as a gross waste of resources.
--
Noel
"tester" <tester@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B0701003-3A1B-491C-9E6E-AE4DEF40EAAE@xxxxxx
| Quote: |  | |
|
> Help for WLMail Advanced Searching tell users who run it on XP,
> that WDS is
> required for text searching, although the advanced search
> functions don't
> work within WLMail, such as SENT: or DATE: or OR or AND, etc.
>
> OR and AND work in the full WDS Interface as does >05/1/08 AND
> <5/5/08 but
> the resulting search columns don't contain subject or sender, and
> unless you
> choose Communications (vs. email) date doesn't show up in the
> results column
> either.
>
> To work around these deficiencies, you can leave your old messages
> in OE
>
> BUT...
>
> There is a quirk that ratchets up the Compact Check Count for OE
> in the
> registry for OE, which prompts you to Compact OE even though
> nothing is
> flowing in or out of it.
>
> I've had it do so 5 times in a day, and you can answer Ok each
> time only to
> have it return.
>
> My solution, just remove the registry entry.
>
> Unfortunately it came back.
>
> Ok, then rename it.
>
> Same thing.
>
> Set it to -9999
>
> Won't accept negative nimbers.
>
> So, unless MS fixes it, the only other option is to schedule a
> task to reset
> it to 0 every hour or so.
| |
| | |