TIA
--
John Corliss
Not without a third-party utility.
Have a look here:
http://www.nic-nac-project.de/~kaosmos/mboximport-en.html
Something to do with Outlook or M$ Exchange?
There is a more efficient way of doing it than dealing with individual
messages... :)
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.32.3
^ ^ 20:09:01 up 3 days 5:22 1 user load average: 1.02 1.02 1.00
嚙踝蕭嚙褕貸! 嚙踝蕭嚙畿嚙瘤! 嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭! 嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭! 嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙確! 嚙踝蕭嚙諛梧蕭! 嚙請考慮嚙踐援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
Thanks for the reply, Barry.
In Thunderbird 2, I use the Tb Autosave Extension for archiving my email
as individual .eml files. The extension does a great job of naming the
files so that it's extremely easy to find what I'm looking for.
I guess it would be too much to expect that the TB developers would
implement something similar, especially since they like what they're
promoting what they call archiving in TB3.
I've never liked the way that TB puts all email from a certain folder
into one, big file. If the file gets corrupt, you lose everything. Never
understood why each email can't be a separate file. Seems like that
would be a much easier way to do things.
--
John Corliss
I suggest that you *very* carefully read my OP. Or perhaps my quoting
the pertinent part will help:
>> Please don't ask me why I want to do this, I don't want to go into it.
>> I'm just asking a simple question and all I need is a simple answer.
In other words, WILL IT OR WON'T IT?
--
John Corliss
It's my guess only. There is no better reason to use the EML format. :)
Anyway..,. I don't want you to lose your job/life by exposing the
detail... SO.. forget it.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.32.3
^ ^ 21:33:01 up 3 days 6:46 1 user load average: 1.07 1.04 1.00
Thanks for repying, Gordon. Yes, I looked at that unsupported (but I'm
sure safe) extension before I posted my message and should have
mentioned it.
However, from what I read it won't do the same job of naming the
individual files as what I'm using now with TB2: Tb AutoSave Extension,
made compatible with MR Tech Toolkit.
--
John Corliss
John,
I played with an add-on ImportExport Tools. You can do a search and export
or just export a whole folder to individual .eml files. It does seem to
work pretty well. TB3 allows us to drag individual .eml files to and from
TB. I don't understand why it can't be done with multiple emails but it
looks like that's not supported.
https://nic-nac-project.org/~kaosmos/mboximport-en.html
download link is at the bottom of the page.
--
HK
Maybe it will help you understand my motivations if you read my reply to
Barry Jackson.
--
John Corliss
Thanks for your reply, H-Man. I guess my reply to Barry Jackson applies
here too though.
--
John Corliss
Yeah, I see now that Gordon pointed to the same extension as well. Sorry
about that.
-- On a side note --
I agree that many things would be nice for the TB developers to include,
but based on what I've seen since I've converted to TB for email
exclusively, the list is absolutely huge. From the developers standpoint
I'm sure they are thinking that if there's an extension for it, then it's
as good as included. I wish I knew more about Java and creating extensions,
I'd like to add some of my own. Of course there's also the issue of
extensions getting broken with version updates.
I would also prefer to have all emails handled as individual files, but
this does bring up some interesting issues. When keeping multiple emails in
larger database type files, indexing and searching becomes much more of a
database operation, rather than a file management operation. If individual
email files go missing or get moved while TB is not running would
completely break any indexing scheme that might be built in. If it's a
database operation, TB has complete control and knowledge of what went
where. I know if I were to code an email client from the ground up, I'd
probably use a database format as well, it makes housekeeping much easier.
OTOH, I completely agree that having individual files makes a lot more
sense from the user's standpoint for many reasons.
I played with Windows Live Mail before deciding on TB and it does save
individual .eml files for emails. It also has large files that I'm assuming
are the housekeeping files taking care of indexing the mass of files. As I
sync to a laptop often, these files' names and contents were of some
concern. The individual .eml files make syncing really fast and easy, but
the possibility to break things with the additional files made things a bit
more complicated than what I had either time or ambition for.
All of this said, I'm still not sure why the TB developers would allow the
dragging and dropping of individual .eml files in and out of TB and not
multiple selected files. This makes no sense to me and would really make
any extra extensions to handle .eml files pretty much unnecessary.
--
HK
You mean ImportExportTools, not the reverse. Also, ImportExportTools is
AKA "MboxImport enhanced". Please see my reply to Gordon regarding that
extension. Thanks anyway though.
--
John Corliss
User-Agent: L&H_Reader
What kind of news reader is this?
Cheers,
Marcel
--
Marcel St�r, http://www.frightanic.com
Couchsurfing: http://www.couchsurfing.com/people/marcelstoer
Skype: marcelstoer
-> I kill Google Groups posts: http://improve-usenet.org
Or could anybody else answer this OT question?