Hello subscriber2list, On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:29:29 -0400 GMT (16/09/2006, 04:29 +0700 GMT), subscriber2list wrote:
s> Good suggestions. I'm not sure why I hadn't done it more (or at all) s> with the Inbox folder. I believe I may have falsely thought when I s> moved or deleted things from the Inbox, they were then assigned to s> their respective folders, ie, whatever I've named the folders they s> were transported to and, of course, the obligatory Trash folder. When s> in reality ... some weren't. I faithfully have done purge and compress s> on all other folders ... except I admit not the Inbox for some strange s> reason. Oh, live and learn! Thanks again for your kind words and s> insight into the process, Thomas. I know this from experience. Been there, done that, scratched my head, so to speak. ;-) Ideally, there should be no message in the Inbox at all, as all messages should be sorted into their respective folders. This is not realistic for my home computer, I'm so sloppy, but at work, where email is crutial and a couple of hundreds of mails run throught the Inbox every day, the Inbox is empty. Compressing it is very fast. That's why I said that the time compression needs seems to depends on how many MB of messages are left in the folder. If you sort all of the messages left in your Inbox into folders, and then compress it, you should not have to wait 20 minutes but only a fraction of a second until compression is completed. -- Cheers, Thomas. What do you do when you see an endangered animal that is eating an endangered plant? http://thomas.fernandez.hat-gar-keine-homepage.de/ Message reply created with The Bat! 3.85.03 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.85.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
