RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
Andrew, I consider 1.5 GB the danger zone. Trying running a compact on a 1.5GB with 45 folders. We are talking hours. I showed the user that he must use 3 different PST files, much faster and cleaner now. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colbeck, Andrew > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 3:02 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal > > 2 GB is the danger zone for .pst files. They can be bigger, but if they do > get corrupted, the Inbox Repair Tool will truncate it just short of 2 GB. I > don't know if there is a fixed maximum of messages. > > Andrew 8) > > -Original Message- > From: Pete McNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:58 PM > To: John Tolmachoff (Lists) > Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal > > > On Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:57:25 AM, John wrote: > > JTL> FYI, there is a product for Exchange called ActiveFolders that is > JTL> very reasonably priced. It does have the option of searching PST > JTL> files. > > PST files blow up magically at a certain number of messages - I forget how > many, but that's one of the reasons I'm never going near Outlook again. > > All good info though - I've got a file I've started for this thread. I am > listening even if I'm not responding. ;-) > > _M > > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus > (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, > just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe > Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at > http://www.mail-archive.com. > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
Not number of messages, size. PST files over 1.5GB are extremely problematic and over 2GB at a stop. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:58 PM > To: John Tolmachoff (Lists) > Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal > > On Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:57:25 AM, John wrote: > > JTL> FYI, there is a product for Exchange called ActiveFolders that is very > JTL> reasonably priced. It does have the option of searching PST files. > > PST files blow up magically at a certain number of messages - I forget > how many, but that's one of the reasons I'm never going near Outlook > again. > > All good info though - I've got a file I've started for this thread. I > am listening even if I'm not responding. ;-) > > _M > > > > --- > [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] > > --- > This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To > unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and > type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found > at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re[4]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
On Friday, October 29, 2004, 6:01:39 PM, Andrew wrote: CA> 2 GB is the danger zone for .pst files. They can be bigger, but if they do CA> get corrupted, the Inbox Repair Tool will truncate it just short of 2 GB. I CA> don't know if there is a fixed maximum of messages. CA> Andrew 8) I was thinking that a way to mitigate part of the "size" problem would be to deliver the search results to different mailboxes based on the patterns matched and/or date/time or some other tweakable parameters. It's all up in the air right now - but there are some good thoughts brewing. _M --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
PST files blow up magically at a certain number of messages - I forget how many, but that's one of the reasons I'm never going near Outlook Actually it is the pst file size. OutlookXP 2 gig limit Outlook2003 20 gig limit Kevin --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
2 GB is the danger zone for .pst files. They can be bigger, but if they do get corrupted, the Inbox Repair Tool will truncate it just short of 2 GB. I don't know if there is a fixed maximum of messages. Andrew 8) -Original Message- From: Pete McNeil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:58 PM To: John Tolmachoff (Lists) Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal On Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:57:25 AM, John wrote: JTL> FYI, there is a product for Exchange called ActiveFolders that is JTL> very reasonably priced. It does have the option of searching PST JTL> files. PST files blow up magically at a certain number of messages - I forget how many, but that's one of the reasons I'm never going near Outlook again. All good info though - I've got a file I've started for this thread. I am listening even if I'm not responding. ;-) _M --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
On Friday, October 29, 2004, 11:57:25 AM, John wrote: JTL> FYI, there is a product for Exchange called ActiveFolders that is very JTL> reasonably priced. It does have the option of searching PST files. PST files blow up magically at a certain number of messages - I forget how many, but that's one of the reasons I'm never going near Outlook again. All good info though - I've got a file I've started for this thread. I am listening even if I'm not responding. ;-) _M --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
RE: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
FYI, there is a product for Exchange called ActiveFolders that is very reasonably priced. It does have the option of searching PST files. John Tolmachoff Engineer/Consultant/Owner eServices For You > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Declude.JunkMail- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Davidson > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:38 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal > > Great discussion here guys, the SOX guidelines for retention are very open > ended, bottom line is that if a company is mandated to produce documents > they better produce those documents and they better produce them in a > reasonable amount of time. Body searching is essential to being able to do a > thorough retrieval. > > Pete, I think you have a good idea there and I would certainly be interested > in looking at your product. I have spent the past two weeks looking for a > reasonably priced canned solution and have yet to find one. The coolest > product I found was made by iLumin but it was $150,000, many out sourced > archiving companies are built around this technology and are very high > priced as well. > > There is certainly a market out there for a reasonably priced archiving > solution for small to medium sized businesses. Not only would a solution for > SEC and SOX compliance be useful but any company that wanted to protect > themselves against or help in employee litigation cases would find it > useful. Another simple use would be to retrieve lost email or "accidentally > deleted" email in POP3 environments. > > A basic archive to start with would be great and then maybe in the future > add the ability to index and search attachment content :-) > > Rick Davidson > National Systems Manager > North American Title Group > - > - Original Message - > From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:42 PM > Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient > > > > On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 10:44:32 PM, Matt wrote: > > > > M> Patrick Childers wrote: > > > >>>Hi Pete, > >>>I think your gut is right. I'm pretty sure that I have 2 clients that > >>>would > >>>be quite interested in "SOXsniffer". > >>> > >>> > > > > M> Not to debate the applicability of the technology, but you shouldn't > > M> proceed under the assumption that government regulators are out there > > M> giving IT staff lists of words to be used in "full-text search" of > > M> E-mail archives. That is not the law, and it is not how subpoenas are > > M> issued. > > > > > > > > All really appreciated Matt. > > > > I think the point is that the basic requirements can easily be met, > > and the search capability, which can be very useful in mundane and > > even positive circumstances, can be provided without a significant > > additional effort. > > > > So, for a very low cost, those who might not otherwise be able to > > afford the high-end systems you allude to can have the core of a > > fairly robust capability. I'm sure that core capability can and will > > be extended as needed if I do the job right. > > > > No assumptions here about marketability or suitability - only a raw > > capability that has a high potential for a low cost... and, based on > > my own experiences, having this kind of thing "in your back pocket" > > can be very powerful. I can recall times when a mechanism like this > > would not only have saved me days - even weeks of work, but also would > > have provided a significant competitive advantage. > > > > Consider auditing an engineering (or any large) project near > > completion or after initial deployment. The ability to extract all > > correspondence on the project in an inexpensive and orderly fashion is > > mind-bendingly powerful. -- Dump the results into a searchable mail > > archive system and you have a searchable, threaded reference that you > > didn't know you would need "until now". > > > > Or... when "the boss" comes down and says: "I need you to tell me > > _exactly_ what happened here..." in that uncomfortable way that only > > pointy-haired fellows can really achieve... Been there, done that, got > > the t-shirt and the bumper sticker. It just makes you shiver. > > > > (Where would we be without Dilbert?) > > > > Anyway - I recognize your point
[Declude.JunkMail] OT: Pete McNiel's Product Proposal
Great discussion here guys, the SOX guidelines for retention are very open ended, bottom line is that if a company is mandated to produce documents they better produce those documents and they better produce them in a reasonable amount of time. Body searching is essential to being able to do a thorough retrieval. Pete, I think you have a good idea there and I would certainly be interested in looking at your product. I have spent the past two weeks looking for a reasonably priced canned solution and have yet to find one. The coolest product I found was made by iLumin but it was $150,000, many out sourced archiving companies are built around this technology and are very high priced as well. There is certainly a market out there for a reasonably priced archiving solution for small to medium sized businesses. Not only would a solution for SEC and SOX compliance be useful but any company that wanted to protect themselves against or help in employee litigation cases would find it useful. Another simple use would be to retrieve lost email or "accidentally deleted" email in POP3 environments. A basic archive to start with would be great and then maybe in the future add the ability to index and search attachment content :-) Rick Davidson National Systems Manager North American Title Group - - Original Message - From: "Pete McNeil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 11:42 PM Subject: Re[2]: [Declude.JunkMail] Determining a BCC Recipient On Thursday, October 28, 2004, 10:44:32 PM, Matt wrote: M> Patrick Childers wrote: Hi Pete, I think your gut is right. I'm pretty sure that I have 2 clients that would be quite interested in "SOXsniffer". M> Not to debate the applicability of the technology, but you shouldn't M> proceed under the assumption that government regulators are out there M> giving IT staff lists of words to be used in "full-text search" of M> E-mail archives. That is not the law, and it is not how subpoenas are M> issued. All really appreciated Matt. I think the point is that the basic requirements can easily be met, and the search capability, which can be very useful in mundane and even positive circumstances, can be provided without a significant additional effort. So, for a very low cost, those who might not otherwise be able to afford the high-end systems you allude to can have the core of a fairly robust capability. I'm sure that core capability can and will be extended as needed if I do the job right. No assumptions here about marketability or suitability - only a raw capability that has a high potential for a low cost... and, based on my own experiences, having this kind of thing "in your back pocket" can be very powerful. I can recall times when a mechanism like this would not only have saved me days - even weeks of work, but also would have provided a significant competitive advantage. Consider auditing an engineering (or any large) project near completion or after initial deployment. The ability to extract all correspondence on the project in an inexpensive and orderly fashion is mind-bendingly powerful. -- Dump the results into a searchable mail archive system and you have a searchable, threaded reference that you didn't know you would need "until now". Or... when "the boss" comes down and says: "I need you to tell me _exactly_ what happened here..." in that uncomfortable way that only pointy-haired fellows can really achieve... Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the bumper sticker. It just makes you shiver. (Where would we be without Dilbert?) Anyway - I recognize your point about setting an appropriate policy. I just make hammers... I'll let other folks drive the nails where they are needed ;-) This is now decidedly off topic for Declude. Sorry for the extra bandwidth. Best all, _M --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)] --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
