- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 268
- Country
Do you use patched up to date OE at least under WinXP?
Feel a bit iffy about that folder compacting process?
Try this, empty your recycle bin.
Now compact a folder in OE...wait until finished, failure or not, now 'explore' your recycle bin - voila - a backup has been made before the compacting was attempted ! Alter nothing, compact same folder again... Another bak file created - both available for restore from recycle bin.
So, if compacting a folder should fail and emails are found to be missing, the pre-compaction folder can be restored from the bin.
EDITED. NOT QUITE HOW IT WORKS
By experiment,
Following on from ...a backup has been... above.
At the start of compacting a folder, as an example inbox.dbx, a backup named inbox.bak file is created in the OE store folder.
If the inbox.dbx folder compacts correctly - from OE's perspective - then the inbox.bak file is deleted to the recycle bin.
If OE decides the compaction has failed, then the inbox.bak file remains within the OE store folder alongside the possibly corrupted inbox.dbx folder.
So for each .dbx folder compacted ok, a .bak file should exist within the recycle bin (if bin exists and is large enough) For each failure to compact, perhaps due to size of folder, a .bak copy of the file, pre-compaction, will remain in the OE store folder - unless of course a .bak file of the same name and size already exists there - In this case a new .bak will not be created. (dodgy situation... the existing .bak will be 'older' and not up to date).
If one restores a .bak file from recycle bin... It of course remains a .bak file, for OE to recognise the file it's extension will require changing to .dbx
Ok, OE is old tech but I would have thought M$ could have sorted this over the years !!
.DBX files in excess of 1GB on my m/c do not readily compact... BTW OE suggests compaction after 100 prog openings, the counter is reset following user compliance.
I bet if anyone reads this they'll either point out where I could have found the above on the web... (I searched in vain.) Or tell me my setup is wrong hence the above !
--
Feel a bit iffy about that folder compacting process?
Try this, empty your recycle bin.
Now compact a folder in OE...wait until finished, failure or not, now 'explore' your recycle bin - voila - a backup has been made before the compacting was attempted ! Alter nothing, compact same folder again... Another bak file created - both available for restore from recycle bin.
So, if compacting a folder should fail and emails are found to be missing, the pre-compaction folder can be restored from the bin.
EDITED. NOT QUITE HOW IT WORKS
By experiment,
Following on from ...a backup has been... above.
At the start of compacting a folder, as an example inbox.dbx, a backup named inbox.bak file is created in the OE store folder.
If the inbox.dbx folder compacts correctly - from OE's perspective - then the inbox.bak file is deleted to the recycle bin.
If OE decides the compaction has failed, then the inbox.bak file remains within the OE store folder alongside the possibly corrupted inbox.dbx folder.
So for each .dbx folder compacted ok, a .bak file should exist within the recycle bin (if bin exists and is large enough) For each failure to compact, perhaps due to size of folder, a .bak copy of the file, pre-compaction, will remain in the OE store folder - unless of course a .bak file of the same name and size already exists there - In this case a new .bak will not be created. (dodgy situation... the existing .bak will be 'older' and not up to date).
If one restores a .bak file from recycle bin... It of course remains a .bak file, for OE to recognise the file it's extension will require changing to .dbx
Ok, OE is old tech but I would have thought M$ could have sorted this over the years !!
.DBX files in excess of 1GB on my m/c do not readily compact... BTW OE suggests compaction after 100 prog openings, the counter is reset following user compliance.
I bet if anyone reads this they'll either point out where I could have found the above on the web... (I searched in vain.) Or tell me my setup is wrong hence the above !
--
