g'Day
Not able to install the CiteKit T'bird filter - it says that WDS must be
installed - I think it's saying that WDS 3.x must be installed, I've got WDS
4.
I'll rattle CiteKits cage to see what their doing about WDS 4. Dont really
understand why it's WDS specific anyway, all their other filters work for XP
indexing service and Sharepoint stuff as well.
Oh, by the way WDS indexed the 2.25M objects in a couple of hours on a non
idle system, I even did a bit of work with Expression Blend while it was
indexing which is a pretty full on app.
--
TUT
__________________________________
"Urbane.Tiger" <viking.warrior@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ENCdnUC2SairWbLVnZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@xxxxxx
| Quote: |  | |
|
> g'Day
>
> I just got my WDS and WLM sorted,
>
> I moved the Mail Store to another place, and I moved the Search Database
> to another, and coincidentally nearby, place. I am also using WDS 4 beta.
> And I have XP's indexing service running.
>
> The WDS index has 226,231 objects indexed, it is obviously not looking
> inside compressed cabs, zips etc, otherwise it would have about 7.3M
> objects. The XP index service is reporting 325,401 indexed objects - I
> would have thought that the WDS and XP indexes would have been closer,
> I'll have to review the inclusions and exclusions.
>
> Noel, I disagree with you about WLM sorting making name and date searches
> irrelevant, as far as I can see there is no grand unified view (a'la
> Gmail), that would bring all the mail together for sorting. But it seems
> to me that WDS4 at least does index Mime data, IFilterExplorer tells me
> that .elm and .rss, .nws and .mhtml files are all being indexed by
> C:\WINDOWS\system32\mimefilt.dll, I am not sure what this does.
>
> I have mail in multiple folders to & from the same person, if I enter that
> persons Name then I get all the emails to and from that person
> irrespective of the folder they are in - so I reckon the mime fileter's
> doing the right thing w.r.t. Names at least.
>
> You can get IFilterExplorer here, http://www.citeknet.com/default.aspx
>
> There's also a filter for T'Bird & Eudora mail there; if they use .eml
> files which I think they might then it may be useful, multiple filters can
> be applied to a single file type - e.g. I have multiple filters on both
> jpeg files and pdf files. I throw the T'Bird filter into the pot and let
> you know what it does.
>
> Still haven't installed 4 dictionaries - but its closer to the top of the
> list.
> --
> TUT
> __________________________________
>
> "Ildhund" <jnllb@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:#ThwWQAuIHA.4076@xxxxxx | Quote: | | | |
>> 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.
| | | | | >> | | | | | | |
| | |