I appreciate all the help, but I don't agree with Ildhund on several points.
"Ildhund" wrote:
| 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.
| |
| | |
In fact there are 3 because within WLMail there are 2 approaches. One is the
Find which is at the top of the interface. The rules of usage are to the best
I can tell undocumented and not in the Help. It is hit or miss, something I
cerftainly don;'t have time for. WHat I do know is that the WDS "Advanced"
searches don't work, most importantly those which permit AND, OR, etc.
Next is the interface that was in OE, which does permit date ranges and
text, but again, does not permit AND OR, etc.
My mail goes back to 1995, and the need to start with a date, and filter by
sender are definitely necessary, and AND OR NOT etc. have become critical
also.
| Quote: | | |
|
> 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.
| |
| | |
As previously stated, the operators/filters don't work in the above.
| Quote: | | |
|
> 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.
| |
| | |
And my biggest issue about this is with Microsoft, whose msn is requiring
users to switch off OE to WLMail on 6/30/08, and requires WDS for Text
Searching in WLMail yet has the audacity of not having made their own
products work together.
| Quote: | | |
|
> 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.
| |
| | |
Nor does the Sender, and unless you include Communications in your search,
because they apparently haven't identified WLMail as eMail, you don't get the
messages in WLMail to appear.
| Quote: | | |
|
> 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.
| |
| | |
I didn't know that and that is another example of how irritated customers
could/should be.
| Quote: | | |
|
> Maintaining a separate, duplicate message database in OE strikes me
> as a gross waste of resources.
| |
| | |
If you are referring to having the same messages in OE and WLMail, and are
taking some kind of a "green weenie" shot at me, well:
1.) I am not doing that. I haven't opened OE since 4/23, and when I do open
it, I usually only do so to move another month of messages out of WLMail to
OE so I can search them with WDS. I then delete them from WLMail.
2. If you are referring to the fact I have spent hours upon hour fiddling
with OE and WLMail to find answers so I can be prepared for when msn dumps
support for OE, then yes I fully agree, MY resources, and yours, and the
others who have attemped to help, have certainly been wasted.
Microsoft of course remains silent in all this.
I have determined through the use of Regmon that it is searchprotocol, i.e.,
WDS 3.01 that ups the Compact Check Count ever 10 minutes or so, and that is
the culprit in regards to my problem with it.
| Quote: | | |
|
> --
> 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.
| | | | | >
> | |
| | |