 |
 | 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 / New Users / February 2008Outlook 2003 and mail server question...
I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both have a behavior that I find baffling. I have to keep some files on the mail server to be able to access them from work and home, but to keep the mail server from filling up, I thought I'd make sub folders on my desktops and place messages I want to keep in them. When I do, they are no longer in my inbox, but they are still on my hosting company's mail server. Why don't messages get deleted from the mail server when they are removed from the Inbox in Outlook? IMHO, that's the way it should work....not in Inbox means not on server. jim >I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both have a >behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd make sub folders on my desktops and place messages I want to keep in > them. I'd like to make that more clear.... The sub folders that I made are under the Inbox in Outlook...not out somewhere on my desktops. When I move emails from the Inbox to a sub folder, I'd like them gone from the server. Otherwise, how will I keep my emails handy and still not fill up my email server? jim >>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both have >>a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the server. Otherwise, how will I keep my emails handy and still not fill > up my email server? Errrrr.... I think I am missing an important bit of information. What type of mail server is it? I mean, that behaviour makes perfect sense for an Exchange environment, as well as an IMAP environment. Actually, it makes sense for a POP environment too. The solution would just be different for all three types of servers.  Signaturef.h. >>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both have >>>a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > environment too. The solution would just be different for all three types > of servers. Its a POP3 server. jim >>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both >>>>have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Its a POP3 server. Then the solution is an ugly one. Basically, it's 'Don't do it, see if your ISP provides IMAP access.' Basically, POP has one function, retrieve mail from the server (if you count the fact that it deletes the mail immediately after downloading, then it has two.. and yes, this is a grossly over-simplified description). There isn't a way for the client to update the server after the fact. It isn't just an Outlook thing. It's a POP thing. You'll have the same affect in Outlook Express, or whatever other POP clients still exist out there. Signaturef.h. >>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both >>>>>have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > affect in Outlook Express, or whatever other POP clients still exist out > there. They do provide IMAP. But, if I understand IMAP correctly, it stores all messages on the server. So, I'll be right back where I started - with messages being bounced due to a full inbox. Even if the IMAP protocol allows me to keep my folders on the server also, I am still faced with an overflowing email account due to space restrictions on the email server. What I need is a way to make sure that any messages that I move from the inbox to a sub folder are deleted from the email server. This seems to be the only way that I can stop my inbox from overflowing. I can't believe that other people sith business email accounts that are hosted are nothaving this issue. This should be handled by the email client - Outlook in my case. jim >>>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both >>>>>>have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > messages on the server. So, I'll be right back where I started - with > messages being bounced due to a full inbox. Create a PST. Move messages you want only on your local machine to that PST. > I can't believe that other people sith business email accounts that are > hosted are nothaving this issue. This should be handled by the email > client - Outlook in my case. The client is limited by the protocol. Tell you what, want a way to do this with POP? Copy the message to the folder. Delete the original message. Empty the deleted items folder. Make sure that the "Remove from server when deleted from 'Deleted Items'" check box is checked. Personally, I find that a little cumbersome. As for other people and what they run into.... well, perhaps they have a better system of managing their email, or they have a higher quota than you do. Signaturef.h. >>>>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both >>>>>>>have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Delete the original message. > Empty the deleted items folder. That's fine for me, but for the others in our company - they'd never get it done right. > Make sure that the "Remove from server when deleted from 'Deleted Items'" > check box is checked. > > Personally, I find that a little cumbersome. I can do it, but you are right, it is a bit too cumbersome for the average bear. > As for other people and what they run into.... well, perhaps they have a > better system of managing their email, or they have a higher quota than > you do. We have inquired as to having our 1GB per user limit raised, but that only delays the inevitable. The problem with Outlook (through 2007) is that when emails are moved to a sub folder in the same PST, they are no longer in the Inbox. Therefore, to the end user, it looks like the Inbox is in a completely manageable state and well within the limits of the server. When, in reality, the messages are still in the inbox on the server - they just no longer show in Outlook's Inbox. This is very decptive behavior as the sub folders inside your Outlook Inbox are not readable from another PC (as you would expect with IMAP and server folders) and the messages still in the Inbox on the server do not appear in your Outlook Inbox. This gives the distinct impression that the messages are no longer on the email server, but are only in your Inbox sub folders. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Maybe I can do something about that. jim >>>>>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they both >>>>>>>>have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > Maybe I can do something about that. Like what? That's how POP3 clients work. It isn't anything about how Outlook works. It isn't specific to Outlook. It is specific to POP3 clients. Want to do something about it? Don't outsource your mail server. Get Exchange and run your own server. Otherwise, go IMAP and move items to your PST that you don't want stored on the server. Signaturef.h. >>>>>>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they >>>>>>>>>both have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > Outlook works. It isn't specific to Outlook. It is specific to POP3 > clients. Outlook does not remove the messages from the server when they are moved from the inbox to another folder. IMHO, this is not how end users expect the client to act - at least not the 300 or so that I take care of. Outlook will only remove a message from the server if you delete the message. This means that, to keep your server from overflowing AND to keep your emails, you have to COPY the email message to another folder and DELETE the inbox message. Why can't you simply drag and drop the image into another folder and free up the server space simultaneously? As a coder myself, I know that this is possible. The Outlook (and possibly other) client coders simply chose not to address the issue of server storage AND multiple logon locations in an intuitive manner. > Want to do something about it? Don't outsource your mail server. Get > Exchange and run your own server. Not my call. > Otherwise, go IMAP and move items to your PST that you don't want stored > on the server. Like I said...not a problem for me. It's the ordinary users that struggle with doing that. jim >>>>>>>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they >>>>>>>>>>both have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > from the inbox to another folder. IMHO, this is not how end users expect > the client to act - at least not the 300 or so that I take care of. Then you need to educate your users. This is how POP3 clients work. This is NOT an Outlook limitation. > Outlook will only remove a message from the server if you delete the > message. This means that, to keep your server from overflowing AND to > keep your emails, you have to COPY the email message to another folder and > DELETE the inbox message. Yes. > Why can't you simply drag and drop the image into another folder and free > up the server space simultaneously? As a coder myself, I know that this > is possible. The Outlook (and possibly other) client coders simply chose > not to address the issue of server storage AND multiple logon locations in > an intuitive manner. Because POP3 is not a push/pull client/server application. It pulls messages. It does NOT push information to the server. Even the 'Delete messages when emptied from the deleted items folder' is a kludge. It's a hack to work around limitations in the POP3 protocol. POP3 was NEVER designed as a PROTOCOL to store messages on the server. That's why it doesn't do it by default. IMAP is a push/pull client/server application. But, your entire mailbox is what is pushed and pulled. If you want something off the server, you get it out of the mailbox. The Inbox is *not* the mailbox. The Inbox is a folder in the mailbox. >> Want to do something about it? Don't outsource your mail server. Get >> Exchange and run your own server. > > Not my call. If this is such a big issue with your 300 users, MAKE IT YOUR CALL. Write the proposal about how many hours you are wasting, how much user agony is being caused and give it to your superiors. MAKE IT HAPPEN. 'Not my call' is the weak way out. >> Otherwise, go IMAP and move items to your PST that you don't want stored >> on the server. > > Like I said...not a problem for me. It's the ordinary users that struggle > with doing that. Then teach them. I just taught you how to do it, so it's not that difficult. Seriously. I have trained plenty of folks in my time and you'd be amazed at how quickly they get the basics. Especially when the alternative is that they can't send or recieve email. Sorry if you think this is all very rude, but, seriously, this isn't an outlook issue and you're trying to make a very old, solid protocol do things that it wasn't designed to do. Use the right tool for the right job. Signaturef.h. Hi: I would like to enter this discussion, if I may. First of all, I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on Microsoft Outlook. I am confused by what seems to be a foregone conclusion by both of you that Outlook 2003 (which is what I use) can not control the contents of the mailbox on the server. If I select Tools, Options, Mail Setup, E-mail Accounts, view or change existing accounts, then select my email account and click on Change, then More Settings, then select the Advanced tab, I see a check box with the caption, "Leave a copy of messages on server". It would seem to me that if that box is unchecked, then the server will download the message and delete it from the server. Doesn't that solve your problem? If not, I must not understand your question, in which case I am sorry for taking up your time. Jim (not to be confused with jim) >>>>>>>>>>>I have Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2007 on different PCs, but they >>>>>>>>>>>both have a behavior that I find baffling. [quoted text clipped - 149 lines] > things that it wasn't designed to do. Use the right tool for the right > job. > Hi: > I would like to enter this discussion, if I may. First of all, I am by no [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > taking up your time. > Jim (not to be confused with jim) The problem is not with leaving messages on the server (which is selected), but in what happens to a message that is cut and pasted or moved from the inbox to another local folder on the users' desktop installation of Outlook. Outlook indeed does a fine job of leaving the messages on the server as instructed. But, my end users need to remove messages from Outlook's inbox to local folders to keep from filling up their POP3 accounts. When they do so, I assumed that moving a file from the inbox would remove it from the server. It does not. The only way to accomplish this seems to be by *copying* the files that they wish to delete from the server and then *deleting* them from the inbox. Although that is one solution, it falls apart when they start using rules to automatically save items in sub folders. While it is true that they could set the rule to copy the email to the proper folder and then delete it, teaching them even these fundamental tasks is like herding blind, drunken kittens. It would be nice if Outlook deleted messages from the server when they were removed from the inbox, or at least had a setting to do as much. Then, these blind, drunken kittens could drag and drop or move emails in any fashion and the expectation that the server contents now equaled the inbox contents would be true. IMHO, this would help them to manage their server quotas in a simple, intuitive fashion. jim (not to be confused with Jim) |
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.