Compact folders: suggestion
Mark
I don't know if this is the right place for
suggestions, but here goes:
I think it would be nice to clarify compact folders a
little. It seems ambiguous whether it is to compact
all the folders or a single folder. Anyway, my
suggestion is to split it into two options, for the
sake of clarity (compact all folders, and compact folder).
gwtc
that means more than one, doesn't it? Therefore it compacts ALL
folders at once.
Whereas when you right click on a folder it says Compact This Folder
-- means it compacts the one you're currently on.
--
You know you need a new housekeeper when: She's great with the food
budget -- but the hamsters are missing and last night's burgers tasted
a bit funky.
Herb
> Mark wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I don't know if this is the right place for suggestions, but here goes:
>>
>> I think it would be nice to clarify compact folders a little. It
>> seems ambiguous whether it is to compact all the folders or a single
>> folder. Anyway, my suggestion is to split it into two options, for
>> the sake of clarity (compact all folders, and compact folder).
> Under File, it says Compact Folders -- note the "s" from folders -- that
> means more than one, doesn't it? Therefore it compacts ALL folders at
> once.
>
> Whereas when you right click on a folder it says Compact This Folder --
> means it compacts the one you're currently on.
>
I agree with Mark in the sense that the issue could be made clearer.
While it does say Compact Folders under File, i.e. it doesn't actually
say *all* folders, and it is by no means obvious that it refers to all
folders. Unsuspecting users might expect to see a further menu giving a
choice of the actual folders to be compacted, for example.
This issue is quite significant because for a large mail archive
compacting all folders takes a *very long time*, and if the mail archive
contains many large subfolders that are never or very modified it is
absolutely *pointless* to compact all folders on a regular basis.
I therefore *always* compact only a few selected folders, and I would
advise Mark and others with large mail archives to use the same approach.
--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
Ron Hunter
First, it might be wise to compact more frequently, which should be
faster, and to keep archives smaller by moving old ones to another
location on your HD. It is also a function of the speed of your
machine. I agree than compacting rarely modified folders is a waste of
time, but there are ways to prevent it becoming a problem, such as only
doing the compact when you have some other program active, and don't
care if it takes TB a while to do its thing.
Herb
Hi Ron,
thanks for your comments, but my strategy of selective compaction has
worked very well for me for years, and I see no reason to change it.
--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
Mike Cowperthwaite
> Mark wrote:
>> I think it would be nice to clarify compact folders a little. It
>> seems ambiguous whether it is to compact all the folders or a single
>> folder. Anyway, my suggestion is to split it into two options, for
>> the sake of clarity (compact all folders, and compact folder).
> Under File, it says Compact Folders -- note the "s" from folders -- that
> means more than one, doesn't it? Therefore it compacts ALL folders at
> once.
>
> Whereas when you right click on a folder it says Compact This Folder --
> means it compacts the one you're currently on.
This has been streamlined for TB 2.0 -- the context menu item reads only
"Compact". A bug was filed requesting a Compact Folders option in the
context menu for an account.
But it would all be so much better if they could figure out to keep
folders compacted automatically without any user interaction.
gwtc
> But it would all be so much better if they could figure out to keep
> folders compacted automatically without any user interaction.
if I'm correct, OE does that automatically. But then all the user has
to do is make the changes in the Options.
--
Computer Points to Ponder #1: How come the users can find all the
computer bugs and not the programmers or analysts?
Ron Hunter
Would rather NOT have that. In several cases, my wife has inadvertently
deleted email, and since the database does not compact until ordered to
do so, I have been able to recover those deleted emails.
NM Public
> Mike Cowperthwaite wrote:
>>
>> This has been streamlined for TB 2.0 -- the context menu item
>> reads only "Compact". A bug was filed requesting a Compact
>> Folders option in the context menu for an account.
>>
>> But it would all be so much better if they could figure out to
>> keep folders compacted automatically without any user
>> interaction.
>
> Would rather NOT have that. In several cases, my wife has
> inadvertently deleted email, and since the database does not
> compact until ordered to do so, I have been able to recover
> those deleted emails.
I agree with both Mike and Ron, i.e., there should be an option
to compact folders automatically and there should be an option to
be warned when a compaction is about to occur. I blogged about
this here:
The IMAP Way of Deleting a Message
<http://deflexion.com/2006/05/imap-way-of-deleting-message>
At the bottom of that post, I describe how to set Pine and
Mulberry up to warn on compact (aka expunge) and then I say this:
"As far as I can tell, SeaMonkey Suite and Thunderbird can not be
set up to warn on expunge, but please post a comment about this
if you know the story."
Another compact suggestion: How about giving
SeaMonkey/Thunderbird users the option to:
* Compact this folder
* Compact all folders in this account
* Compact all folders in all mail accounts
Just some thoughts/wishes,
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy McGough
Infinite Ink: <http://www.ii.com/>
Bookmarks & Blog: <http://deflexion.com/>
not given
Please Clarify;
In TB and SM 1.5 and 1.1 respectively, this exists. You ARE warned that
compaction will occur (at time of). Are you speaking of later marks?
Herb
Hi Nancy,
as an additional option, I would like to be able to compact a
user-selectable group of folders, i.e. your list of options would read
something like
* Compact this folder
* Compact user-defined list of folders
* Compact all folders in this account
* Compact all folders in all mail accounts
--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk
V S Rawat
> In several cases, my wife has inadvertently
> deleted email, and since the database does not compact until ordered to
> do so, I have been able to recover those deleted emails.
[Snipping as my query relates to this part only]
How do you recover the deleted mail from not-compacted folder?
thanks.
--
Rawat
Chris Ilias
> Mike Cowperthwaite wrote:
>
>> But it would all be so much better if they could figure out to keep
>> folders compacted automatically without any user interaction.
>
> Would rather NOT have that. In several cases, my wife has inadvertently
> deleted email, and since the database does not compact until ordered to
> do so, I have been able to recover those deleted emails.
I'm of the opposite camp. Each user already has a failsafe from
accidental deletion, in the form of a trash folder.
--
Chris Ilias
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
Mozilla links <http://ilias.ca>
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
Chris Ilias
> How do you recover the deleted mail from not-compacted folder?
http://home.att.net/~cherokee67/restoredelmail.html
Ron Hunter
> _Ron Hunter_ spoke thusly on 08/06/2006 3:47 AM:
>> Mike Cowperthwaite wrote:
>>
>>> But it would all be so much better if they could figure out to keep
>>> folders compacted automatically without any user interaction.
>>
>> Would rather NOT have that. In several cases, my wife has
>> inadvertently deleted email, and since the database does not compact
>> until ordered to do so, I have been able to recover those deleted emails.
>
> I'm of the opposite camp. Each user already has a failsafe from
> accidental deletion, in the form of a trash folder.
And if they were holding the shift key???
Believe me, it if is possible to lose data, my wife WILL manage it.
Chris Ilias
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> I'm of the opposite camp. Each user already has a failsafe from
>> accidental deletion, in the form of a trash folder.
>
> And if they were holding the shift key???
Then it's not accidental.
V S Rawat
> _V S Rawat_ spoke thusly on 08/06/2006 12:11 PM:
>> How do you recover the deleted mail from not-compacted folder?
>
> http://home.att.net/~cherokee67/restoredelmail.html
Thanks for the pointer.
However, there is some inconsistency in the guidelines. Quoting.
> 5. Find: X-Mozilla-Status: 0009 Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
> Based on information from sample mail header above (this will restore the message to "unread")
> 6. Find: X-Mozilla-Status: 0019 Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
in the above it replaces 9 with 1 instead of with 0
> Based on information from sample mail header above
>
> Continue the above steps:
>
> Find: X-Mozilla-Status: 001b Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: 0013
> Find: X-Mozilla-Status: 000b Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: 0003
> Find: X-Mozilla-Status: 1019 Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: 1011
in the above it replaces 9 with 1 instead of with 0
> Find: X-Mozilla-Status: 101b Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: 1013
>
> Though I have not tried ALL combinations, I beleive that you can replace the last digit and restore the message to again display.
> E.G.:
> Find: X-Mozilla-Status: nnn9 Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: nnn0
> Find: X-Mozilla-Status: nnnb Replace with: X-Mozilla-Status: nnn3
thanks.
--
Rawat
Ron Hunter
> _Ron Hunter_ spoke thusly on 08/06/2006 11:28 PM:
>> Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> I'm of the opposite camp. Each user already has a failsafe from
>>> accidental deletion, in the form of a trash folder.
>>
>> And if they were holding the shift key???
>
> Then it's not accidental.
Grin. Tell that to my wife!
OliverS
Netscape)files could mysteriously disappear on occasion. If the folders
were compacted, they were automatically gone. If not, they could be
retrieved by deleting the ".MSF" file, or its equivalent under an
earlier version of T'Bird.
Oliver