WLMail on XP requires WDS, WDS ups OE Compact Check Count

05-15-2008

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.

05-17-2008

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.

05-18-2008

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.

>

05-18-2008

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.

>>

05-20-2008

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.

>
>

05-21-2008

That requirement has been rescinded until further notification.

Both of these links should provide sufficient info on that topic(the first the official notice, the second additional info on the
available http servers in use by the WebDAV protocol)

Windows Live Hotmail Technical Support Blog: Responding to Customer Feedback - Disabling DAV
http://emailsupport.spaces.live.com/...708!5745.entry

WebDAV Protocol Deprecation Delayed - Status Update
http://liveunplugged.spaces.live.com...90CA!222.entry

--
...winston
ms-mvp mail

"tester" <tester@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:67AD715C-F274-45DB-B07F-A2FB29F1A25B@xxxxxx

	Quote:
	> And my biggest issue about this is with Microsoft, whose msn is requiring > users to switch off OE to WLMail on 6/30/08

<snip>

05-21-2008

"tester" <tester@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:67AD715C-F274-45DB-B07F-A2FB29F1A25B@xxxxxx

	Quote:
	> I appreciate all the help, but I don't agree with Ildhund on > several points.

Quote:

> "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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

WDS is a separate application giving advanced search facilities.
There is no integration with WLMail except to the extent that WLMail
has access to its index. Help says clearly that the Find a message
box will find messages containing the search term, but it will only
find them in the *body* of a message if WDS is
installed. It is a very efficient word-wheel mechanism which finds
messages matching the search term very quickly.

	Quote:
	> 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.

As far as I know (based only on experience), the Edit > Find
advanced search function is a real-time search which does not use
the WDS (or any other) index. Your original message was about WDS;
the *two* systems I referred to are those using the WDS index.

Quote:

	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.

	Quote:
	> As previously stated, the operators/filters don't work in the > above.

In WDS, you can enter a search term with qualifiers to narrow down
the number of results. In WLMail you can enter a search term letter
by letter - in many cases the result you're looking for will be
visible before you've even finished entering the whole string. The
results can then be sorted to narrow down the field. Two ways to
achieve the same result.

Quote:

	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.

	Quote:
	> 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.

I'm not quite sure where MSN comes into this. There is no
*requirement* to switch off OE, but if you want to continue
accessing Hotmail via HTTP, you won't be able to use OE to do it
after they stop using WebDAV - whenever that may be. You will
continue to be able to use POP3, but for the time being that is
limited to those who pay $20 a year for Hotmail Plus (and a few
other privileged accounts).

Quote:

	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.

	Quote:

05-15-2008	#1 (permalink)
tester Guest Posts: n/a	WLMail on XP requires WDS, WDS ups OE Compact Check Count 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.
tester Guest Posts: n/a