 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Outlook / General MS Outlook Questions / August 2007Auto Archive not archiving
Has anyone found a solution to the archiving problem wherein some emails aren't being archived? The modified date is not the cause of the problem as my emails have a modified date much older than the archive date. It only happens on certain folders and/or emails. I have Outlook 2007 on Windows XP SP2. Any solution? > Has anyone found a solution to the archiving problem wherein some > emails [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Windows XP > SP2. Any solution? Right-click on the folder and make sure *its* auto-archive option is enabled. The global auto-archive option is like the breaker box controlling the electricity even gets into your house. The folder auto-archive option is like the wall switch that turns the light on in a particular room in your house. You need to have both on to get auto-archiving to work on a folder. Make sure the global archive option is set to the lowest number of days specified for any folder's archive option, or to a shorter period. If you configure a folder to auto-archive after 3 days but the global archive operation runs every 10 days then items dated older than 3 days in the folder will have to wait another 7 days before actually getting archived. Just to be sure, have you checked the auto-archive properties on those particular folder(s)? > Has anyone found a solution to the archiving problem wherein some emails > aren't being archived? The modified date is not the cause of the problem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > XP > SP2. Any solution? Yes, all folders are set to the default settings. But I just thought of something! These certain emails were imported in from Outlook Express after I installed Outlook 2007. Could this be the issue? > Just to be sure, have you checked the auto-archive properties on those > particular folder(s)? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > XP > > SP2. Any solution? Il 13/08/2007 23:02, RH ha scritto: > Yes, all folders are set to the default settings. But I just thought of > something! These certain emails were imported in from Outlook Express after > I installed Outlook 2007. Could this be the issue? I hope someone will reply, because I recently experienced the same problem in Outlook 2003 after importing the message base from Outlook Express: even though I checked all archive settings and manually forced archiviation for a number of times, Outlook did not archive anything; it just created the mail folders in the archive folder tree, but they were left empty. I eventually gave up because it was not so important after all, but if a solution exists I would like to know it so that maybe I can try again.  SignatureCiao, Marco. > Il 13/08/2007 23:02, RH ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I eventually gave up because it was not so important after all, but if a > solution exists I would like to know it so that maybe I can try again. I have read that others are having problems with Auto Archiving certain email messages even though the modified date is older than the default archive date and all the folders are set to the default setting. I wonder if these certain emails were ones that were imported in from Outlook Express because that appears to be the problem. In the meantime, I guess I will have to manually move these messages to the archive folder and hopefully will have no more problems in the future. > Yes, all folders are set to the default settings. But I just thought > of something! These certain emails were imported in from Outlook > Express after I installed Outlook 2007. Could this be the issue? Importing from Outlook Express will update the modified date (and received date, for that matter) of your messages. Consequently, autoarchive will consider them to be new and bypass them when it runs. Eventually, they will be old enough to match your autoarchive criteria. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 14/08/2007 17:57, Brian Tillman ha scritto: > Importing from Outlook Express will update the modified date (and > received date, for that matter) of your messages. Consequently, > autoarchive will consider them to be new and bypass them when it runs. > Eventually, they will be old enough to match your autoarchive criteria. Good to know, thanks. But that's a rather user-unfriendly behaviour, because the imported mails still show the correct original date when viewed in Outlook, so to the eyes of the user it's definitely unclear why Outlook is not archiving them. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Good to know, thanks. > But that's a rather user-unfriendly behaviour, because the imported > mails still show the correct original date when viewed in Outlook, so > to the eyes of the user it's definitely unclear why Outlook is not > archiving them. You're lucky. Usually importing messages with Outlook from Outlook Express will update the received date as well, assigning the date and time of import. That's why som many messages in this newsgroup recommedn exporting messages from Outlook Express instead, because that way the received date is preserved. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 14/08/2007 20:48, Brian Tillman ha scritto: > You're lucky. Usually importing messages with Outlook from Outlook > Express will update the received date as well, assigning the date and > time of import. That's why som many messages in this newsgroup > recommedn exporting messages from Outlook Express instead, because that > way the received date is preserved. Ow! :) So nice from Microsoft to warn me about that when I started the import process... what? They didn't? What a pity! ;) SignatureCiao, Marco. > Brian Tillman: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > so to the eyes of the user it's definitely unclear why Outlook is > not archiving them. If the user is moving around or modifying the e-mails then obviously they aren't "old". The user JUST changed them. Add the Modified Date column if you get confused between when the message was originally received versus when you last played around with them. If you check date attributes on a file, you'll also notice there is a create date and modified date. If you were backing up files based on being older than whenever they were last changed then you don't go by the create date. You would end up archiving a file that you just changed today but that was created years ago. Il 14/08/2007 21:22, Vanguard ha scritto: > If you check date attributes on a file, you'll also notice there is a > create date and modified date. If you were backing up files based on That's a totally different story: received email messages are not meant to be *modified*. Even when you move them from one folder (or one application) to another, you are not modifying them, their content should be left exactly the same, headers included. SignatureCiao, Marco. > That's a totally different story: received email messages are not > meant to be *modified*. Even when you move them from one folder (or > one application) to another, you are not modifying them, their content > should be left exactly the same, headers included. Well, actually you are modifying them. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 14/08/2007 23:00, Brian Tillman ha scritto: >> meant to be *modified*. Even when you move them from one folder (or >> one application) to another, you are not modifying them, their content >> should be left exactly the same, headers included. > > Well, actually you are modifying them. You are not, from the "standard user" point of view, which is the important one for an application like Outlook. I'd bet very very few "standard" (i.e. not expert/advanced) users ever thought of downloaded mails as of something which could be modified. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Brian Tillman: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ever thought of downloaded mails as of something which could be > modified. Stop confusing folders and items in Outlook with folders and files in the OS file system. There are no folders in Outlook's message store! That is merely a organizational representation to show the hierarchy of the data. Outlook's message store is a database. By moving a record from one table to another or by altering keyword fields in a record, you HAVE modified the record. Il 15/08/2007 9:25, Vanguard ha scritto: > Stop confusing folders and items in Outlook with folders and files in > the OS file system. There are no folders in Outlook's message store! But this is the metaphor Outlook's GUI uses to present objects to the user, including mails. And so the whole application should conform to it, for the sake of consistency. > the data. Outlook's message store is a database. By moving a record > from one table to another or by altering keyword fields in a record, you > HAVE modified the record. "You can argue your point", and it might be technically right, but it won't change the fact that this is a wrong and unexpected behaviour from the user point of view. If I have a mail which shows a 1-year old date in the default view settings, and tell Outlook to archive elements older than 6 months, I expect that mail to be archived, even if I moved it to a different folder yesterday; period. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Il 15/08/2007 9:25, Vanguard ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the user, including mails. And so the whole application should > conform to it, for the sake of consistency. So, in the OS file system, should Microsoft also show all folders as files since that is what they really are? So should Microsoft require that all Outlook users know database queries and how to do selects, deletes, and purges in databases? So explain how YOU would better provide a representation of data in a database and its organization or keyword associations that wouldn't use the hierarchical representation used now by Outlook? How would YOU show the hierarchy without folders, subfolders, and items? How would YOU show that the items are records in a database without confusing users that haven't a clue of what is a database? You're focusing on the Received date. You've already been informed on how to add a column to show the Modified date. Your choice to ignore it. Il 15/08/2007 20:41, Vanguard ha scritto: > So explain how YOU would better provide a representation of data in a > database and its organization or keyword associations that wouldn't use > the hierarchical representation used now by Outlook? How would YOU show > the hierarchy without folders, subfolders, and items? How would YOU > show that the items are records in a database without confusing users > that haven't a clue of what is a database? Are you raving? I'm ok with the way Outlook represents data: it mimics the usual file/folder hierarchical structure to which users are accustomed since years. The problem is with the import function, which has an unexpected side effect I would almost call "bug". Even more, thinking that you can avoid this side effect by first exporting messages from OE and then importing them in Outlook (at least, that's what Brian wrote; I didn't try); there's no real reason why this kind of import should behave differently from the direct one. > You're focusing on the Received date. You've already been informed on > how to add a column to show the Modified date. Your choice to ignore it. Guess what? I'm so lucky that I don't need to use Outlook or OE ;). I encountered the problem on a friend's PC. She switched from OE to Outlook and then wanted to archive all mails received before Jan 2007, but this is not possible anymore. They're not a lot of mails, luckily, so I already decided that she will keep them there until archive time will come or maybe move them by hand when she has time, not a big problem. I could also recover OE's dbx files from a backup (I already removed them), and then try the export+import solution, but she had a number of folders in OE so I think it's not worth the hassle. Showing the Modified date is not a solution, because she wanted to archive mails *received* before a certain date, which is what most users commonly need. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Even more, thinking that you can > avoid this side effect by first exporting messages from OE and then > importing them in Outlook (at least, that's what Brian wrote; I > didn't try); there's no real reason why this kind of import should > behave differently from the direct one. I didn't say this. I said export them from OE. They go directly into Outlook with no importing at all. I do agree that importing shouldn't change the received date, which it often does, but I certainly expect importing to change the modified date because an import is a BIG modification. I certainly don't want to import a couple of thousand older messages only to have autoarchive zip them out from under me the very next time it runs. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 16/08/2007 19:49, Brian Tillman ha scritto: > I didn't say this. I said export them from OE. They go directly into > Outlook with no importing at all. Uh. Sorry but I do not understand: you mean exporting from OE onto the filesystem, just like when you drag&drop them, and then have a single file for each mail and leave them like that? And how are you supposed to read/search those old mails when you need, then? Does not sound very comfortable... > because an import is a BIG modification. I certainly don't want to > import a couple of thousand older messages only to have autoarchive zip > them out from under me the very next time it runs. Why not? If the messages are older than the archive threshold *you* have set, it's ok when Outlook archives them, especially because this does not mean you are losing them forever: they are just being moved in an archive folder/pst. IMHO, importing all your mail from the last 4 years from OE to Outlook is not like saying "ok, now let's start it all from scratch" (which could mean that you want to leave your old mail behind OR that you want to have all your old mails treated like they were new), but rather "ok, let's switch mailer but bring all my old mail with me so that I can read it all in a single place should I ever need it". SignatureCiao, Marco. > Uh. Sorry but I do not understand: you mean exporting from OE onto the > filesystem, just like when you drag&drop them, and then have a single > file for each mail and leave them like that? Nope. When you have both Outlook and Outlook Express configured and operational on a single PC, clicking File>Export>Messages in Outlook Express will tell you that you're about to export to Outlook or Exchange then allow you to specify either all or a a portion of your OE folders. Proceeding from there sends those folders directly to Outlook (or Exchange) with no intermediate file(s), recreating in Outlook the same folder structure as in OE. > And how are you supposed > to read/search those old mails when you need, then? Does not sound > very comfortable... They'll be right there in Outlook in the folders whose names are exactly what they were in OE. >> because an import is a BIG modification. I certainly don't want to >> import a couple of thousand older messages only to have autoarchive >> zip them out from under me the very next time it runs. > > Why not? Because if I didn't want them available, I wouldn't have moved them, and since I did move them, I don't wnat them disappearing into some archive PST that's visible in my folder list. Recently references data should NOT be archived. Only data NOT referecnes for a while should be. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 17/08/2007 23:22, Brian Tillman ha scritto: > Nope. When you have both Outlook and Outlook Express configured and > operational on a single PC, clicking File>Export>Messages in Outlook > Express will tell you that you're about to export to Outlook or Exchange Oh, ok thanks, that's good to know. I never tried that one. > Because if I didn't want them available, I wouldn't have moved them, and > since I did move them, I don't wnat them disappearing into some archive > PST that's visible in my folder list. Recently references data should Well, I see a contradiction between "disappearing" and "visible" in the same sentence ;), but anyway, details apart, I suppose it's a matter of tastes: most people I know who use email for serious work prefer to keep all mail in a single application, including old mails which they might need one day or another but do not want to have in the way everyday, so an archive PST is the perfect place. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Brian Tillman: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > which they might need one day or another but do not want to have in > the way everyday, so an archive PST is the perfect place. I haven't found a way to force items to get auto-archived on a different schedule than by the modified timestamp (because I have no means to change the modified timestamp for the record in their database). I may move items from 2006 into their own folder (which changes the modified timestamp) and then auto-archiving won't work until the number of days have past whereupon they become "old" items. However, you can open the archive .pst in Outlook using File -> Open. In fact, I always have my archive .pst file(s) opened in Outlook because there have been many times when I have to continue the search into old items. Once the archive .pst file is open in Outlook, you can create and delete folders in the archive message store however you want. That it is an archive .pst file is merely because that's how you chose to use it. It could be a .pst file from some other instance of Outlook for another user on the same or different host. With the archive message store open in Outlook, you can select items in your current message store and drag them into whatever folders you want in your archive message store. In fact, if items got moved into your archive .pst file that you want back in your current message store, just drag them out of the archive store back to the current store. You can even set auto-archive options on the archive message store, like you move items over a year old from your current message store into the archive folder and then configure auto-archiving in the archive message store to move items out to yet another archive .pst file that are, say, over 2 years old. You can daisy chain each archive .pst file so each one contains progressively older items with the last archive .pst file configured to permanently delete old items. You could, for example, chain together 5 .pst files uses for archiving to keep up to 6 years worth of e-mails (1 year for the current message store, 2 years for the next one, 3 years for the next, and so on). They don't even have to be .pst files in which auto-archiving was used to put items in them. You can drag whatever items you want from one message store into the other message store, and all within Outlook. Maybe you have one .pst file used for old business mails and another .pst file for old personal mails. The only caveat is that these other .pst files must be opened in Outlook so you can actually use them (and so auto-archving gets exercised as configured). Each time you open another .pst file, you'll see another tree in the "folders" list where the root node of that tree is the message store for that other .pst file. Il 18/08/2007 0:26, Vanguard ha scritto: > fact, I always have my archive .pst file(s) opened in Outlook because > there have been many times when I have to continue the search into old > items. Once the archive .pst file is open in Outlook, you can create > and delete folders in the archive message store however you want. That > it is an archive .pst file is merely because that's how you chose to use > it. It could be a .pst file from some other instance of Outlook for Indeed, this is the archive PST usage I've seen most. As I already wrote, I don't use Outlook myself, but as far as I recall the people with whom I work always have their archive folders shown in the folder tree. That's why I wonder why Brian wrote that an archive PST would not be visible, see my other post I just sent. Based on my recent experience on Outlook 2003 for my friend, I even think that the archive PST which Outlook creates the first time you use the archive function is visible *by default* in the folder tree, being automatically set as an additional data file in Outlook prefs. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Indeed, this is the archive PST usage I've seen most. As I already > wrote, I don't use Outlook myself, but as far as I recall the people > with whom I work always have their archive folders shown in the folder > tree. That's why I wonder why Brian wrote that an archive PST would > not be visible, see my other post I just sent. I believe that, by default, when you set up autoarchive, the archive PST is not displayed in the Folder List. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] > Well, I see a contradiction between "disappearing" and "visible" in > the same sentence ;), I meant to type "not visible". > but anyway, details apart, I suppose it's a > matter of tastes: most people I know who use email for serious work > prefer to keep all mail in a single application, including old mails > which they might need one day or another but do not want to have in > the way everyday, so an archive PST is the perfect place. Oh, I don't disagree with you in any way on this, it's just that I don't consider messsages that I've just got done manipulating "old". Apparently you do. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 18/08/2007 0:58, Brian Tillman ha scritto: > I meant to type "not visible". Uhm, and why do you say that? Aren't archive PSTs usually visible in the folder list, just under a different branch? > Oh, I don't disagree with you in any way on this, it's just that I don't > consider messsages that I've just got done manipulating "old". > Apparently you do. Not exactly. The real difference is that I don't consider messages that I've just imported as "manipulated" ;). SignatureCiao, Marco. > Uhm, and why do you say that? Aren't archive PSTs usually visible in > the folder list, just under a different branch? Nope. Unless you open them specifically, they will not appear in the Folder List. > Not exactly. The real difference is that I don't consider messages > that I've just imported as "manipulated" ;). "Manipulated" means "acted or operated upon". Are you acting upon messages when you import them? Well, I won't pursue this any further, and it's not important for us to agree on whether or not importing should change any time stamps. The reality is that it does. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 20/08/2007 16:01, Brian Tillman ha scritto: > Nope. Unless you open them specifically, they will not appear in the > Folder List. Ok. So maybe on my friend's computer the archive PST appeared automatically because I launched the archive process manually immediately after importing messages. >> Not exactly. The real difference is that I don't consider messages >> that I've just imported as "manipulated" ;). > > "Manipulated" means "acted or operated upon". Are you acting upon > messages when you import them? No. Please try to leave out your technical attitude for a minute. I'm 100% sure that the "common user" attitude when importing old mails from OE to Outlook is that they want them to stay "old" just like they were in OE. If the problem is that this way old mails would soon disappear at the first automatic archive process, then there are better ways to solve it: deactivate automatic archiving by default, or issue a warning when importing mails, or do archive but issue a warning the first time it happens, etc. > Well, I won't pursue this any further, and it's not important for us to > agree on whether or not importing should change any time stamps. The > reality is that it does. And reality is that this behaviour confused at least two users in just a few days (me and RH) :). I was not trying to reach any agreement, I was just observing that it is an unexpected behaviour for common users. SignatureCiao, Marco. > No. Yes. Importing is an action and you are moving the mesages from one data store (in a completely separate application) to another and that is a significant action. The entire format of the message is regenerated. > Please try to leave out your technical attitude for a minute. When dealing with computer software, that's the only attitude I find that works all the time. What you (or I) would like it to do or what the "common user attitude" is has no relevance. While you may want imported messages to "stay old", the fact is they do not. I do agree that the received date, at least shouldn't change, but I think it is appropriate that the modified date changes and it is the modified date that determines whether or not autoarchive will process the messages. > And reality is that this behaviour confused at least two users in just a > few days (me and RH) :). But that doesn't, de facto, make the behavior incorrect. It means your understanding of the behavior is incomplete. Certainly not a crime and that's why there are groups like this: so we can read and increase our understanding. > I was not trying to reach any agreement, I was just observing that it is > an unexpected behaviour for common users. I consider myself a common user (I have no formal Outlook training) and it certainly is not unexpected for me. I would have been surprised if it DIDN'T happen. SignatureBrian Tillman [MVP-Outlook] Il 21/08/2007 15:23, Brian Tillman ha scritto: (I thought you were not going to pursue this any further...) >> No. > > Yes. Importing is an action and you are moving the mesages from one I already wrote that I do not consider imported messages as "manipulated"/"acted upon", and I'll now add that I'm sure this is also the idea of non-technical users with whom I have contact for technical support reasons. No way I'll change my mind, sorry ;) (and I do not mean to change yours). >> Please try to leave out your technical attitude for a minute. > > When dealing with computer software, that's the only attitude I find > that works all the time. Yes, because most software is badly written, and you are not able to justify its behaviour without disentangling its technical innards. I'm a techie too, and I feel at ease with computers, but I'm not happy with it: I would like *everyone*, including my mom, to feel at ease with them. Trying to justify bad software behaviour asserting that humans should change their attitude will not help computers get any better. Software must be made to be more easily understandable, and sometimes it's as easy as adding a warning message. > that the received date, at least shouldn't change, but I think it is > appropriate that the modified date changes and it is the modified date > that determines whether or not autoarchive will process the messages. Maybe it is - although I still do not agree. But, even if it is, the problem is that this might cause an unexpected behaviour, so some informative message in the software should be added. > I consider myself a common user Are you kidding, MVP? SignatureCiao, Marco. Il 21/08/2007 11:48, Marco De Vitis ha scritto: > And reality is that this behaviour confused at least two users in just a > few days (me and RH) :). Just for the record, make them five - at least: there's sov2000 in this same thread, then "agentguerry" in "Archiving not getting emails" and "Rustom" who has a strictly related problem in "Change the Modified Date". I also read yet another thread - can't remember the subject now - about archiving problems which might have been due to the same Outlook behaviour, but as far as I recall the answers given by the original poster didn't make it clear. SignatureCiao, Marco. > Il 14/08/2007 21:22, Vanguard ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one application) to another, you are not modifying them, their > content should be left exactly the same, headers included. Yes, they are modified. You JUST moved them around so obviously they haven't been stagnant by sitting wherever they were. Auto-archiving is meant to archive items that you have not TOUCHED in the specified number of days (opening them does not touch them). You can argue your point but it won't change how Outlook functions. And, by the way, received e-mail CAN be modified. Open it in its own window and use the "Edit -> Edit Message" menu. I'm very glad I found this thread. It was like a blessing to see it on the home page for Exchange/Outlook newsgroups as one of the most active threads. I came here looking for answer for a verys similar problem with exception in my case I was importing Outlook 2003 PSTs into Exchange 2007 mailboxes. I got my answer why Outlook wasn't archiving as I was expecting. I think I do agree with Marco. I work with close to 200 users and everyone I know manages their Outlook mail as far as timeline goes anyway based on receive/sent date. Basically in chronological order of events and not when the items were referenced. Furthermore I believe Outlook misleads you when it comes to Archive interface. It tells you that it will archive items "older" than XX/XX/XX but doesn't tell you based on what time stamp this condition is based. So, if you are like me a user with a chronological mindset you expect the items to be archived based on their receive or sent date not modified date. What is even more confusing that often enough modified date will match received date. So if you used archive features for years you really do not expect this. Anyway, thank you all for clarifying this. > Has anyone found a solution to the archiving problem wherein some emails > aren't being archived? The modified date is not the cause of the problem as > my emails have a modified date much older than the archive date. It only > happens on certain folders and/or emails. I have Outlook 2007 on Windows XP > SP2. Any solution? Il 24/08/2007 20:46, sov2000 ha scritto: > I'm very glad I found this thread. It was like a blessing to see it on the > home page for Exchange/Outlook newsgroups as one of the most active threads. Glad to know that time spent typing in this thread was not entirely wasted ;). > archived based on their receive or sent date not modified date. What is even > more confusing that often enough modified date will match received date. So > if you used archive features for years you really do not expect this. Indeed. SignatureCiao, Marco. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.