Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Outlook 2002 + IMAP? Some doubts :)

Hi all!!

I'll probably _have_ to use Outlook as my email program soon (up to now there was no "company enforcement" of the rule), and am starting to tinker with it to get acquainted. Specially, I want to get familiar with the behaviour of OUTLOOK for IMAP mail

Up to now, I've been using OE and MOZILLA for my email needs, and am very happy about it. One thing I like is that they file sent messages on the "sent" folder of the IMAP server. But OUTLOOK doesn't seem to do that. I know I can create a rule to do it for me, but I was wondering if there is a way to do if "automatically" for all IMAP accounts (3 of them).

Also, I've been able to move around the personal .PST files where the email is stored, but the PST for the IMAP account is always stored under %userprofile%\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Outlook\ I'd like to change the location of the folder (for example, the pst folder for some confidential email should be in my PGP-encrypted volume). No matter what I try, I can't find a way of moving the email around...

Any way to do it?

  Thanks a lot....

Javier Jarava
Thursday, November 13, 2003

You don't sound like you have any choice or saying, but at least try to get Outlook 2003. It's much better - everything's much more responsive, including IMAP folders.

Phoenix
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Hi!

RE: being forced to switch, the fact is, I still can use Mozilla and OE (am a local admin at my computer, and one of the two "network" admins), so it's not like I _have_ to migrate. As a matter of fact, I plan to keep Mozilla around, but lately other colleagues are starting to use things such as meeting notifications & calendaring, so I can foresee a future in which I'll "be left behind" if I don't  have some Outlook version installed, so I thought I'd have to start "getting up to speed" (besides, how can an ""3l1t33"" admin like me not know more about Outlook than my PHB ? ;)

RE: Outlook 2003 vs. Outlook 2002, I've installed Outlook 2002 because I know Outlook 2000 has no IMAP support. 

Besides that, I have Office 2000 and would like to stay with it, for backward compatibility (and because I don't know any compelling reasons to update, and some not to). But if Outlook 2003+ (rest of) Office 2000 work well together, I'd be more than happy to give it a go...

In any case, is it possible to move the pst with IMAP folders in 2003 from its default location? :) :)

Javier Jarava
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Outlook has had IMAP support since at least 98, and Outlook 2000 definitely has IMAP support (I'm using it right now for that purpose).

Ankur
Thursday, November 13, 2003

outlook 2003 works side by side with office 2000, but a few office integration features won't work. you can't run > 1 version of outlook at once.

you can also run your favorite mail program + outlook at the same time.

mb
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I can also vouch that Outlook 2003 plays well with Office 2000.

Outlook 2003 is a vast improvement over all earlier versions, and it's actually starting to feel like a modern e-mail program. A bit slow and buggy in places, and some frustrating behaviors (auto-completing of e-mail addresses is very slow, and breaks if you have both a fax number and e-mail address listed for a contact) , but definitely a worthwhile upgrade. The junk mail filter actually works, the three-pane navigation is a huge improvement, and there are many usability improvements.

Brad
Thursday, November 13, 2003

I have to admit Outlook's IMAP client is by far the best client-side implementation of IMAP I've seen. This is probably due to extensive client-side caching of messages. I find Mozilla and other open-source IMAP clients are usually much slower than Outlook for similar operations.

Dan Maas
Thursday, November 13, 2003

Has Outlook 2003 finally fixed deletion/purging?

In previous versions deleting would not move it to the trash, but rather draw a line through it. It would not go away until you found the Purge command buried in the menus.

Nate Silva
Thursday, November 13, 2003

If you don't want to see striked-through deleted messages in Outlook, you can simply choose a predefined custom view that hides them.

Ankur
Friday, November 14, 2003

RE: Has Outlook 2003 finally fixed deletion/purging?

I think it's not an Outlook issue, but an IMAP one. If you mark a message as deleted, it's not actually deleted from the mailbox until you purge the mailbox. It's a bit of a PITA, but OTOH, it's better than deleting half your email before you realice it.

Just my 0.002

Javier Jarava
Friday, November 14, 2003

(If you don't want to see striked-through deleted messages in Outlook, you can simply choose a predefined custom view that hides them.)

If I do that will the messages eventually be deleted? In previous versions of Outlook I belive you would still have to manually purge.

Nate Silva
Friday, November 14, 2003

(I think it's not an Outlook issue, but an IMAP one.)

I think it's a UI issue. When you move a message from one folder to another it shouldn't leave behind a striked-through message that you have to manually purge. Same when you delete a message -- it should move to a Trash folder.

Nate Silva
Friday, November 14, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home