Microsoft Opening Outlook's PST Format

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Opening Outlook's PST Format

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday October 26, 2009 @10:33AM from the still-a-long-way-to-go dept.

protosage writes to tell us that Microsoft Interoperability is working towards opening up Outlook's .pst format under their Open Specification Promise. This should "allow anyone to implement the .pst file format on any platform and in any tool, without concerns about patents, and without the need to contact Microsoft in any way." "In order to facilitate interoperability and enable customers and vendors to access the data in .pst files on a variety of platforms, we will be releasing documentation for the .pst file format. This will allow developers to read, create, and interoperate with the data in .pst files in server and client scenarios using the programming language and platform of their choice. The technical documentation will detail how the data is stored, along with guidance for accessing that data from other software applications. It also will highlight the structure of the .pst file, provide details like how to navigate the folder hierarchy, and explain how to access the individual data objects and properties."

319 comments

Oh no... by Mr.+Roadkill · 2009-10-26 10:37 · Score: 3, Funny

Another sign of the Apocalypse - and it's a doozy. I always figured hell would freeze over before Microsoft opened up something like the .pst specs.
1. Re:Oh no... by caffeinemessiah · 2009-10-26 10:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is incredibly brave of Microsoft, given that Outlook is so ubiquitous. I can see a number of good and not-so-good reasons for doing this:
  (1) They feel that Outlook is genuinely capable of withstanding competition from the likes of TBird and other competitors, and to be fair, the quality of Outlook has improved a lot.
  (2) They feel that opening Outlook's specs will give them access to iPhone app-store like ingenuity from the "crowd" (throw in your favorite buzzword here). Basically, let the hackers go at it and come up with neat little means to improve Outlook usability. If more products carry a "Works with MS Outlook" sticker, that can only be good for outlook (in one line of reasoning).
  (3) All the old, seasoned outlook engineers have retired or died, and they're hoping that someone can figure out the .pst specs.
  
  --
  An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
2. Re:Oh no... by Mr.+Roadkill · 2009-10-26 10:55 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Expanding on point 2, Microsoft may want to open up the MAPI specs a little more for the benefit of iPhones and the like. At $DAYJOB, we have Exchange 2003 and a number of users with iPhones and we've seen some bizarre things happen on occasion with calendar entries (weirdness when one of a number of repeating appointments is changed or cancelled and not showing up as changed or removed on the iPhone, that kind of thing). While I'm prepared to believe that it's partially to do with Apple testing more thoroughly with and developing against Exchange 2K7, I can't help but feel that a better understanding of how Outlook communicates with Exchange and a better understanding of how Outlook represents the data internally would help other developers produce something that works better with Exchange.
  And that could well be Microsoft's strategy...domination at mail-and-collaboration server end. If they open up the client specs a little more, and that makes Exchange 2010 and beyond more attractive, they've won.
3. Re:Oh no... by davester666 · 2009-10-26 10:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  In other news, Microsoft disables the ability for all of it's software to import and/or export PST files...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
4. Re:Oh no... by Technician · 2009-10-26 10:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think it is much more likely the reason is (4).
  (4) As standards committees and governments adopt open formats, Outlook is at risk of being rejected for the closed format. Opening the format ensures the benefits of the Outlook/exchange server will remain the industry standard in software and support purchases. Like IE, expect some features to simply work better on an Exchange Server with Outlook on Windows while unsupported applications on a foreign OS may have random errors and glitches.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
5. Re:Oh no... by gerf · 2009-10-26 11:00 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  and to be fair, the quality of Outlook has improved a lot.
  I love how Outlook uses almost 300MB of virtual memory at work. Seriously, wtf.
6. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:14 · Score: 0
  
  4. The new version of outlook doesn't use pst files and insists that you convert any old ones to it's new closed format.
7. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  (3) All the old, seasoned outlook engineers have retired or died, and they're hoping that someone can figure out the .pst specs.
  From the looks of it, that's why ooxml was made, too
8. Re:Oh no... by roc97007 · 2009-10-26 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  (4) They're about to change the pst spec to a different closed standard with some backwards compatibility.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
9. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  "MAPI" (Exchange RPC) is being put out to legacy pasture and being replaced with an XML-based API called "Exchange Web Services". That is why Exchange2K7 works better with third party clients.
10. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:22 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  They're switching to OpenPST files (.pstx)
11. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's because they're moving to a web based model, so PST's are of limited use in vendor lock in going forward.
12. Re:Oh no... by tsm_sf · 2009-10-26 11:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well to be fair you do need to have templates like 'balloon party' ready to go at a moments notice.
  
  --
  Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
13. Re:Oh no... by jabuzz · 2009-10-26 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  I am not sure that your analysis of the binary RPC version of MAPI being replaced is actually accurate.
  However it the binary RPC version of MAPI and the related binary RPC Exchange-Exchange interface has been reverse engineered on more than one occasions now, with the OpenChange project providing public documentation and a reference library implementation.
  In addition to that, I believe that the protocols are documented under the E.U. mandated API documentation settlement.
14. Re:Oh no... by diegocgteleline.es · 2009-10-26 11:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Let me add another reason:
  (5) They don't care about the outlook format because Sharepoint is the new closed format. They don't care if your outlook mailboxes (or .doc or anything else) is in an open format because you put it all in sharepoint. You still can read your mailbox with another program, but because the "metadata" of your IT infrastructure (which isn't a single file, but a lot of files with owners and relationships between all them) is stored in sharepoint you're tied to it for the eternity. This is a brilliant move - Microsoft can convice governments that their outlook and office and all their apps are using open formats, but no government will ask about the openness of sharepoint because it's not an application that reads some kind of document.
15. Re:Oh no... by BitZtream · 2009-10-26 11:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Reality check:
  The PST format is rather useless. You can already access all the data on a Windows machine (which you have already to create it anyway) using Outlook plugins, either a COM Outlook Object Model plugin or a Exchange client plugin, depending on what you need.
  So okay, now things like Thunderbird can import the mail from Outlook, which is good for people who use POP3 I guess, IMAP and Exchange store the mail on the server so theirs no real need.
  Products won't carry a 'Works with Outlook' sticker because of this, the file is locked when Outlook is open, you you have to use an Outlook plugin if you want to do anything useful with it for normal people who use Outlook.
  As someone who writes Outlook plugins for a job, this is rather useless for much other than exporting data from a backup without reinstalling Outlook after a crash of your system.
  I.E. useful only in a limited set of circumstances that are really a corner case.
  This doesn't do anything for communicating with Exchange, which is really what you want.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
16. Re:Oh no... by oceanicicefloe · 2009-10-26 11:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I think the most likely explanation is that PST files are deprecated in the next version of Exchange... they are pushing for people to move to server-integrated archiving instead. That will make PSTs somewhat redundant so why not open up the spec if it gets you warm fuzzies from the industry.
  A comment from an Exchange developer on the EHLO blog:
  
  "To put it simply you need to move away from PSTs. Larger mailboxes are the answer here. In addition you can leverage, single item recovery, and our messaging records management 2.0 with a personal archive mailbox to retain needed data and manage your quotas."
  
  http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/09/25/452632.aspx
17. Re:Oh no... by CastrTroy · 2009-10-26 12:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think a much better idea would be to rewrite Outlook to use a real database as a backend. They already have SQL Server. Why not just store all your mail in a SQL Server database? You wouldn't have problems with maximum file sizes. You would have much better scalability for those with gigabytes of email, and you could have a common interface working with the data in the terms of running SQL queries. I don't know why no other email client like thunderbird wouldn't do the same. Make it easy to access your email store, and you could easily write tons of applications to access your email.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
18. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  MAPI has absolutely nothing to do with it. The iPhone is not a MAPI client. It is an ActiveSync client, which functions purely over Outlook Web Access in Exchange 2003. In this scenario, the front-end server acts as the client to the back-end server, and proxies the requests for mailbox information between the back-end and the front-end.
19. Re:Oh no... by oatworm · 2009-10-26 12:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Oh God... a 20 GB Unicode XML file! The horror! The horror!
20. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly what problem does that cause? Virtual memory allocations don't have much of an impact. That's just how much memory the application has allocated for use. It does not correlate to how much it is actually using at any given time. Do some googling of "private bytes" and "working set" to get a better idea.
21. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:37 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's entirely incorrect. I can tell you as an insider that MAPI is going nowhere, as MAPI defines Exchange. Outlook 2010 will communicate with Exchange Server via MAPI, as will the version after that.
  Exchange Web Services replace WebDAV, which was used by OWA in versions past.
22. Re:Oh no... by Abreu · 2009-10-26 12:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  (6) It's a trap!
  
  --
  No sig for the moment.
23. Re:Oh no... by homesnatch · 2009-10-26 12:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >I am not sure that your analysis of the binary RPC version of MAPI being replaced is actually accurate.
  
  Grandpa AC is correct.. Microsoft is phasing out MAPI entirely and has already replaced it with an open implementation. ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb204042(EXCHG.140).aspx )
  
  With the advent of Web Services in Exchange 2007 ( http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb408417.aspx ), clients including Outlook are moving to use standard protocols to access Exchange. Outlook 2007 made a huge step towards using HTTP, XML to access Exchange 2007.
  
  Apple's Mail App requires Exchange 2007 because the Mail.app client is using Web Services to access. ( http://images.apple.com/macosx/exchange/docs/MacOSXSL_Exchange.pdf )
24. Re:Oh no... by davester666 · 2009-10-26 12:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  With only a single binary 'blob' element...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
25. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  Except outlook, with an exchange server, doesn't really use PSTs unless there's forced archiving ;)
26. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  Except outlook, with an exchange server, doesn't really use PSTs unless there's forced archiving ;)
  Actually, the default in Outlook with an exchange server is to autoarchive to a .pst file unless you turn it off.
27. Re:Oh no... by R2.0 · 2009-10-26 14:17 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I'm thinking more "The Ring" for software - thousands of software developers open the specifications file and all die horrible deaths within a week.
  
  --
  "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
28. Re:Oh no... by The+Original+Yama · 2009-10-26 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  (1) They feel that Outlook is genuinely capable of withstanding competition from the likes of TBird and other competitors, and to be fair, the quality of Outlook has improved a lot.
  Considering their ambiguity towards compatibility with the GPL, it looks more likely that they are trying to minimise competition from open source, while at the same time falsely claiming that 'everyone' can use it.
  
  --
  OLPC Australia
29. Re:Oh no... by afidel · 2009-10-26 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  I can see it being useful for backup apps, take a VSS backup of the pst file then parse out just the change items, gives you the ability to do new message (differential) backups whether Outlook is open or not.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
30. Re:Oh no... by rubi · 2009-10-26 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Not such luck, the WinMo phones also do some wird things with appointments, especially repeating ones. If I follow your line of tought, the the WinMo developers (more precisely, the Pocket Outlook ones) don't have a clear understanding of MS's way of doing MAPI. I would place my bet on #3 or something to that effect or add a #4: someone or something is MAKING them do it and we just haven't found out.
31. Re:Oh no... by natehoy · 2009-10-26 15:02 · Score: 0, Redundant
  
  (7) Profit.
  
  --
  "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
32. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who writes Outlook plugins for a job, this is rather useless for much other than exporting data from a backup without reinstalling Outlook after a crash of your system.
  I'm not sure about that. People could develop alternate ways to access this data, beyond those already provided by MS, that provide faster access. Useful if you want to, for example, search across all the PSTs in an org to see how many people got a particular email that has been determined to contain a virus.
33. Re:Oh no... by dbIII · 2009-10-26 15:14 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't worry. It will truncate itself to 2GB and throw the rest away.
  Outlook not so good :(
34. Re:Oh no... by dakameleon · 2009-10-26 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  I seem to remember another big blue-logo company who tried to go for dominance of that very market...
  
  --
  Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
35. Re:Oh no... by obarthelemy · 2009-10-26 15:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's precisely because .pst doesn't matter that much, but the client-server protocol does, that MS is opening.... the .pst format, not the protocol.
  You'll be able to manipulate the data locally, but as soon as you want to send it to or from the server, you'll need exchange/outlook.
  nothing to see.
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
36. Re:Oh no... by obarthelemy · 2009-10-26 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure WinMo developpers have a clear understanding of anything. 6 more months till I can give my phone the thrashing it deserves... PoS !
  
  --
  The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
37. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  This is VERY true. I know of instances where MS pays out of their own pocket to move wikis and portals off FOSS and onto Sharepoint, several tens of K worth of consulting fees, because they know Sharepoint create a much stronger lock-in than anything else they have.
38. Re:Oh no... by PReDiToR · 2009-10-26 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but "lemon party" is only 31,615 bytes. Who needs balloons?
  
  --
  
  Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
39. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 16:04 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Um - dude, SharePoint stores everything in SQL Server - anyone with half a brain can read the schema and everything has been fully documented via the same open protocol specs for more than 2 years now....
40. Re:Oh no... by s2theg · 2009-10-26 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Shhhh!!! No more ideas! They are just crowd sourcing a possible strategy for releasing the pst format.
41. Re:Oh no... by Meski · 2009-10-26 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Another sign of the Apocalypse - and it's a doozy. I always figured hell would freeze over before Microsoft opened up something like the .pst specs.
  Think Indiana Jones and opening the ark. It's not something you want to see.
42. Re:Oh no... by beguyld · 2009-10-26 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  I love how Outlook uses almost 300MB of virtual memory at work. Seriously, wtf.
  What version are you using? I am using Outlook 2007 (on XP), with over 12,000 emails in my inbox (don't ask...) and it is using 40 MB of virtual memory. This is POP3 on two separate accounts. I also have Thunderbird for another email account, with 4,000 emails in the inbox, and it uses 24 MB of VM, though its working set is larger, at 34 MB (vs 25 MB for Outlook).
  Overall, very comparable, though Outlook is vastly more pleasurable to use. I only have Thunderbird installed to keep my work email completely separate from my person email.
43. Re:Oh no... by cgenman · 2009-10-26 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  (4) Outlook sales are pretty much tied to Office sales, and Office sales are driven by more important factors.
  (5) It's possible to import / export from Outlook currently anyway, so this could be a bone to get regulators off their backs.
  (6) 3rd parties using PST format files might drive Exchange Server sales, which would be much more lucrative.
  (7) Maybe there are just a few cool people working at Microsoft. It is a huge company you know.
  (8) There are engineers at Microsoft who'd rather use Thunderbird.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
44. Re:Oh no... by kaoshin · 2009-10-26 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  2GB limit went away in Outlook 2003 though, so now I can finally take a really big pst. When I'm done with that, I'll probably dump my logs.
45. Re:Oh no... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-26 18:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Now if only Thunderird gets a .pst import function for the calendar and address book it will be almost perfect for my use... at least v2 - god knows what has been done to v3.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
46. Re:Oh no... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-26 18:12 · Score: 0
  
  2K7???? Is that supposed to mean 2007? If so then why did you put 2003 and 2010 instead of the far more trendy and obscure 2K3 and 2K10?
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
47. Re:Oh no... by bruce_the_loon · 2009-10-26 18:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  (-5) Sharepoint is stored in a SQL server database. The structure is vaguely nightmarish because of the desire for obfuscation, but it is perfectly possible to get the files back out with a bit of work. It is less of a lock-in than a .pst file would be, even with the release of these specs.
  I'll bet that Alfresco or Knowledge Tree's commercial products can come up with modules to migrate from a Sharepoint if they haven't already.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
48. Re:Oh no... by Hal_Porter · 2009-10-26 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  DO NOT RUN TASTY OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPERS! WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS!
  (Please don't mod me down, they paid me good money to post this.)
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
49. Re:Oh no... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-26 18:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  This doesn't do anything for communicating with Exchange, which is really what you want.
  Well it isn't what I want. I want TBird (with its calendaring extensions) to be able to read the Outlook address book and calendar from the .pst files.
  Then I want TBird to be able to sync to my phone but that's another story and doesn't seem likely to happen so I may as well get an android and run TBird on it.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
50. Re:Oh no... by tokul · 2009-10-26 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just store all your mail in a SQL Server database? You wouldn't have problems with maximum file sizes. You would have much better scalability for those with gigabytes of email, and you could have a common interface working with the data in the terms of running SQL queries. I don't know why no other email client like thunderbird wouldn't do the same. Make it easy to access your email store, and you could easily write tons of applications to access your email.
  
  Simple. You should not store lots of binary data in SQL. I don't think that MS SQL compact edition can handle 10 GB of emails on standard desktop machine.
  Your SQL queries won't be able to do full text, body or header search anyway. You need MIME decoders to handle all email formats.
  Optimal way of working with emails is to store message envelopes in DB and keep raw messages as files in hashed directory structure.
51. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 18:34 · Score: 0
  
  You tool. Sharepoint the new closed format. How the hell is a managed code framework a closed format?
52. Re:Oh no... by atamido · 2009-10-26 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  2GB limit went away in Outlook 2003 though, so now I can finally take a really big pst. When I'm done with that, I'll probably dump my logs.
  While the 2GB limit went away, anyone wanting a reasonably good chance of maintaining data integrity isn't going to exceed that limit. PST files were never known for their resilience to error, and that 2GB limit just made things worse.
  Also, it's annoying that just having a PST file opened by Outlook causes it to change, which causes it to need to be backed up again by differentials (and consumes space with shadow copies).
53. Re:Oh no... by Hal_Porter · 2009-10-26 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Outlook us using about 40MB of Private Working Set on my machine. I've always wondered how ancient applications like Outlook are written actually - they probably predate MFC. Still if you look at an Outlook process it seems to have the ATL, MFC and .Net DLLs loaded. My guess is that Outlook was originally a large and abominable pure C++ application, but some later additions used MFC when that was fashionable. Later on as ATL took over new bits were written in that and some old bits were rewritten. Same with .Net.
  Actually if your application is a big mass of COM objects you could use any of these.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
54. Re:Oh no... by atamido · 2009-10-26 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  Simple. You should not store lots of binary data in SQL. I don't think that MS SQL compact edition can handle 10 GB of emails on standard desktop machine.
  Your SQL queries won't be able to do full text, body or header search anyway. You need MIME decoders to handle all email formats.
  Optimal way of working with emails is to store message envelopes in DB and keep raw messages as files in hashed directory structure.
  This is essentially all true. You can store large binary blobs in databases, but all database developers will tell you file systems are better for that.
  I've actually written an email archiving system that queried emails from email accounts. You store the relevant bits of the header in the database (to/from/subject/date/etc). Decode all of the MIME attachments, hash them, and store the attachment in the files system using the hash for the file name (saves space/complexity when an attachment is sent multiple times, like signature images). Save all of the MIME metadata in the database. Take the email's plain text and store it in the database for searching (optionally stripping unneeded characters).
  This keeps the database relatively small and agile, which is what you want/need for responsive email programs. A desktop with a LAMP stack can provide instant access to tens of thousands of emails that would crush Outlook. With just the text in the database, performing a text search like "DataCorp invoice" is easy. You don't ever search within a binary blob, so having it internal to the database is pointless.
  Optional: Hash and store the entire email header (sometimes very useful to look at). Hash and store the entire original email (good/necessary for some environments, but the undecoded MIME attachments take a lot more space than the decoded ones). Attempt to compress every file after hashing it (can save a ton of space with little overhead [gzip] for some file types, and it is only a bit flag in the database to indicate if the file is compressed or not). Scrub attachments like PDF/ODF for text and add to the database for searching. Dynamically reconstruct the emails as a .eml using the various stored bits.
  Honestly, it was so easy and fast that I was left scratching my head over how Outlook/PST still performs so poorly.
55. Re:Oh no... by jonbryce · 2009-10-26 19:15 · Score: 1
  
  Outlook uses .ost format files for storing exchange accounts.
56. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Exchange 2007 have web services so you can interact with Exchange even with Java ...
  Why would I need to know the old protocol that Outlook uses?
57. Re:Oh no... by onenil · 2009-10-26 19:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  *sigh*
  
  SharePoint was more open that the PST format was prior to this announcement. The (well documented) SharePoint API enables access to all content - it would be relatively trivial to write software that could walk your entire SharePoint content dbs and indeed farm to extract all data out in a way that could easily be implemented in alternative products. I'm sure its been done. Hell, there's software that does the reverse (and I know this being a SharePoint guy) - that use the very same API to insert data into a SharePoint environment from say a Lotus Notes environment. And trust me, you have as much access to write as you do to read data.
  
  Repeat after me - SharePoint does not lock your data up. It implements a reasonably good document management, content management, workflow, "intranet in a box" site - it aint no drupal when looking specifically at CMS, but that's one of the many tools on this swiss army knife. Sure, corporations will be 'locked in' to SharePoint, but that is because the alternatives that come close to doing what it does are woeful (*cough* Lotus Notes). They're locked in to its functionality, which - correct me if I'm wrong - is ultimately what you choose one software product over another on.
58. Re:Oh no... by corsec67 · 2009-10-26 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  Decode all of the MIME attachments, hash them, and store the attachment in the files system using the hash for the file name (saves space/complexity when an attachment is sent multiple times, like signature images).
  What about collisions? Hopefully you aren't storing emails from more than one person, or that would be a very interesting potential security leak.
  
  --
  If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
59. Re:Oh no... by atamido · 2009-10-26 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  What about collisions? Hopefully you aren't storing emails from more than one person, or that would be a very interesting potential security leak.
  The chance of a random collision for SHA-2/256 is 1 in 2^256, which is less probable than you winning every lottery for the rest of your life. Zero, for all practical purposes.
  Yes, storing emails for multiple accounts. Users don't know the hash values of the files on the server, and they can't access the database directly. The files aren't overwritten, so they couldn't be corrupted. An attack would involve dumping the database to find relevant hash values. Then discovering an attack against SHA-2 (no practical attacks exist against SHA-1, so SHA-2 is pretty safe right now) to generate a new file with an identical hash value. Then email that file to themselves, and download the pre-existing hashed file.
  So, no, not a security leak. If a weakness were discovered against SHA-2, then rehashing to a new method would be trivial. And if can already get a dump of the database, then access is probably compromised already, and it doesn't matter.
60. Re:Oh no... by Imsdal · 2009-10-26 21:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  over 12,000 emails in my inbox
  I know I'm hijacking the thread, but buy, read and implement "Getting Things Done". Seriously. You will thank me later.
61. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  to expand on your point (3), I'd say it means Microsoft knows they want to fire those old outlook engineers, but before, they want them to confess how the hell they structured .pst files.
62. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 21:57 · Score: 0
  
  Brilliant, why use IMAP when there's good 'ol SQL? Fetching contacts from LDAP is overrated too. Let's have the mailserver store its mail queues there too while we're at it. Let's have RADIUS authenticate to it so we can still have SSO. Or even better, we could implement RADIUS in SQL stored procedures and have everyone authenticate with that directly! Wow.
63. Re:Oh no... by RocketRabbit · 2009-10-26 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  Windows now uses demand paged virtual memory if I'm not mistaken, so this number means nothing really.
64. Re:Oh no... by psmears · 2009-10-27 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The chance of a random collision for SHA-2/256 is 1 in 2^256
  Ummm... no, it isn't. It's pretty small, but you're out by many orders of magnitude—this is a birthday distribution...
  
  --
  Need to type accents and special characters in Windows? Use FrKeys
65. Re:Oh no... by jschrod · 2009-10-27 00:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well, (1) I want to access PST file content on non-Windows systems. E.g., for a search engine. (2) I want to access PST file content on systems where COM-embedding has been turned off for "security reasons". (One of our bank customers has that.) If I think more about it, I might even find more use cases.
  I.e., not everybody in the world has your limited use cases. I welcome the opening of the PST specs.
  
  --
  Joachim
  
  People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
66. Re:Oh no... by lukas84 · 2009-10-27 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  Are there still companies utilizing PST files?
  The only thing we still use are .OST files, for Cached Exchange mode. I've seen corruption of these happens back when Office 2007 didn't have any SPs out yet, but deleting the OST and having it rebuilt from the servers always cleared that issue.
  My .ost is 4.5GB. Performance in Outlook is extremely good.
67. Re:Oh no... by mahesh69a · 2009-10-27 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  It's a trap!
  ....said who? Is it Princess Leia or Admiral Ackbar or both?
68. Re:Oh no... by sckeener · 2009-10-27 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  exactly! I'm glad they are doing this though because I'm looking forward to non-hack XYZ company approved tools that can handle local PSTs.
  split them...parse them...export them.....
  The IT forensics team is going to love this
  
  --
  "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
69. Re:Oh no... by StormReaver · 2009-10-27 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  > This is incredibly brave of Microsoft, given that Outlook is so ubiquitous.
  Hardly. This is the result of Microsoft having to abide by the results of a court case that they fought against tooth and nail, that they ignored for months, then finally, begrudgingly, realized they had lost. This is Microsoft doing something because they have absolutely no other choice. Everything else has failed, so Microsoft is finally, years later, complying with court orders trying to remedy Microsoft's illegal abuses of monopoly power.
  This isn't brave. It's a begrudging admission that there are governmental powers that Microsoft couldn't bully; a government with something resembling a backbone.
70. Re:Oh no... by denis-The-menace · 2009-10-27 01:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  and "Exchange Web Services" is Patented!
  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0113001.html
  http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=846&q=%22Exchange+Web+Services%22+patent+microsoft&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
  
  --
  Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
71. Re:Oh no... by Random+BedHead+Ed · 2009-10-27 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  and to be fair, the quality of Outlook has improved a lot.
  I love how Outlook uses almost 300MB of virtual memory at work. Seriously, wtf.
  Yes, and while I like a the shiny bells and whistles of OL 2007, why is it slower to load my newest mail than 2003 was? And why has Advanced Find been hidden? After all, it's the only useful search feature in the app - I just ignore that search box with no options at the top of the mailbox. I hate unnecessary regressions (*cough* KDE4 *cough*).
72. Re:Oh no... by atamido · 2009-10-27 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  I know we still use PST files. People want to keep 10GB in emails, which just becomes ridiculous from an IT perspective. It adds a lot for storage and backup costs, plus backup times and space. What would be useful is if there was an Exchange archive system that were essentially read only. Move all emails older than a year to it so you only have to back it up once every blue moon and the storage could be slower.
73. Re:Oh no... by lukas84 · 2009-10-27 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Exchange 2010 will have this. Currently, there are many third party products that offer such functionality.
  How do you backup 10GB of Mails that are saved to a PST on the client?
  If you don't back that data up, why have it at all?
74. Re:Oh no... by iamhigh · 2009-10-27 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  People that don't have exchange, but do have Outlook could easily write software to share contacts, tasks, calendars and what not. I could see creating a p2p exchange replacement. But I'll have to see the API to know if that's really possibility.
  
  --
  No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
75. Re:Oh no... by atamido · 2009-10-27 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Currently users save emails as a year or two per PST file. Users have roaming profiles, and all folders are automatically redirected to file shares, including a share specifically for Outlook PST files. As the PST files don't change in any meaningful way, the daily backups are set to skip them. (PST files change each time Outlook touches them.)
  One of my duties is to regularly scour through the backups and try to find ways of minimizing the amount of data that needs to be backed up each time, as well as reducing overall backup time. Moving old emails to PST files that are backed up less frequently helped, as well as reducing the load on the Exchange server. (A good deduplicating backup solution would help a lot here, if they ever decided the outrageous licensing fees were worth it.)
  I know another slashdotter mentioned that hosting PST files on a Windows server could bring the server to its knees, but we've done testing and have never had an issue. Luck to us?
76. Re:Oh no... by V!NCENT · 2009-10-27 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  How about the following?: Microsoft opens up spec. Linux businesses get back to Outlook. Microsoft releases a new upgraded version of the format and keeps it hidden. Lock in product. Doomed.
  I do not trust Microsoft anymore...
  
  --
  Here be signatures
77. Re:Oh no... by lukas84 · 2009-10-27 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  I know another slashdotter mentioned that hosting PST files on a Windows server could bring the server to its knees, but we've done testing and have never had an issue. Luck to us?
  Here's the official word:
  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/297019
  The issue only occurs on heavily loaded fileservers, but PSTs on fileservers are nonetheless a bad idea.
78. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 03:40 · Score: 0
  
  They already have opened the MAPI protocol up a great deal. Other projects exist that have already reverse engineered MAPI while there are even startups that have successfully done so.
79. Re:Oh no... by CodeBuster · 2009-10-27 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you are a SharePoint guy then perhaps you can explain why it is so often sold a "general purpose" platform for web development when in fact it is a very poor choice for "general purpose" development? After all, SharePoint was built on top of and using ASP.NET so how can it replace ASP.NET as the general purpose developer platform? Another thing that bugs me about SharePoint is that, like classic VB, it swoops in to solve some "quick hit" problem in a business (i.e. we need better document management) and then proceeds to expand until it collapses under its own weight. This tends to "steal the thunder" of longer term custom development projects using more general purpose tools which, while not finished as quickly, actually scale up and ultimately don't get bogged down in the mud with the SharePoint project that got in over its head. I will admit that SharePoint has its place in the enterprise, but the over-zealous marketing drones at Microsoft and the SharePoint apologists on the blogosphere need to STOP pushing sharepoint as a general purpose development platform and the solution to all business intranet problems. In short they need to quit over-selling SharePoint and using a shoe horn to fit SharePoint into situations where it probably isn't the best choice. They are giving web development a bad name just to garner a few extra sales.
80. Re:Oh no... by atamido · 2009-10-27 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the link. Very interesting, especially "Write operations can take approximately four times longer than read operations." I'm guessing that the article is directed primarily at people that want users to store all email locally rather than simply archiving old email in a more read only fashion, although the arguments seem to hold either way.
  The funny thing is our file server storage is sufficiently fast that using PST files over the gigabit LAN is substantially faster than on the local system. And the load is negligible, as was mentioned it's essentially read only storage for old data.
81. Re:Oh no... by Grishnakh · 2009-10-27 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing that using Exchange web services isn't going to be very useful if you want to sync your iPhone to your company's Exchange server. That's why the protocol is important.
82. Re:Oh no... by TemporalBeing · 2009-10-27 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  OST is a PST just used for the cached data instead of the authoritative data. All the limits, issues, etc. of PST also exist with OST.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
83. Re:Oh no... by lukas84 · 2009-10-27 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  With the exception that a broken OST can be deleted and automatically recreated ;)
84. Re:Oh no... by BitZtream · 2009-10-27 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Both of the cases you specified are very clearly extreme corner cases that apply to a very limited set of people, and both are solved by a very simple 'move it to a different WINDOWS machine'.
  How many times do you plan on accessing a PST from Linux, Solaris or BSD? Exactly once, to dump the data into something useful. Its not like you're running a client on a non-windows machine that would be retarded enough to use a PST as its backing store, and if you are, you get what you deserve.
  Don't use a COM plugin then, use an exchange client plugin. Not really sure how you'd stop that since its just a dll. Exchange client plugins have all the power of a COM Outlook Object Model plugin and they actually let you get at the good stuff.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
85. Re:Oh no... by BitZtream · 2009-10-27 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  You don't need the PST to do that, nor do you want to touch it, Outlook will have it locked when Outlook is running. You'll use a Outlook plugin to do what you want, in which case you don't need to use a PST as a backing store anyway, you can use whatever you want. If you want to continue using the PST backing store or integrate/merge with existing Outlook supported servers (i.e. exchange) then you just use the Outlook Object Model or Exchange Client Plugin API to get what you want via Outlook.
  There really is no reason to touch a PST directly unless you are importing data to something else and don't want to fire up Outlook to do so. Which I can see for backup apps and things like Thunderbird importing old data. Of course, you can get the address book entries already via the address book API, and mail is only important for people using POP which may not store their mail on the server.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
86. Re:Oh no... by BitZtream · 2009-10-27 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just for reference, the PST size issue hasn't been an issue for a good 5 years. Outlook 2k7/2k10 never had the issue and 2k3 was patched long ago.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
87. Re:Oh no... by j-pimp · 2009-10-27 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Then I will check my mail with XMLSpy.
  
  --
  --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
88. Re:Oh no... by Scannerman · 2009-10-27 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  I am using Outlook 2007 (on XP), with over 12,000 emails in my inbox (don't ask...) and it is using 40 MB of virtual memory. .
  for another data point.
  28000 in the inbox (you thought you were bad...), Windows 7, exchange and a POP account 66MB used.
  I don't think that is too bad.
89. Re:Oh no... by charlesnw · 2009-10-27 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  That is open. Microsoft released it a while ago. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc307725.aspx
  
  --
  Charles Wyble System Engineer
90. Re:Oh no... by RobertM1968 · 2009-10-27 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Or it simply means a new version is in the works, that is Windows only, and uses a different format. That would follow their history/track record pretty nicely.
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
91. Re:Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  Other Developers have created something that works better with Exchange, Blackberry Enterprise Server.
92. Re:Oh no... by Tenareth · 2009-10-27 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  This has been an easy sell to the CEO/CTO types for years, it is the reason for all the 4GL languages that let you "build applications without developers".
  Businesses don't like Development, they don't understand it, can't measure it well (except highly developed CMM shops) and the developers are "expensive".
  To business, development is a huge overhead they have been trying to get rid of for years, and Microsoft is providing them with yet another way to try to do that.
  Microsoft knows a lot of businesses don't understand development and have been playing on that ignorance since the creation of VB.
  
  --
  This sig is the express property of someone.
93. Re:Oh no... by mab · 2009-10-27 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  what's this about then http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb204042(EXCHG.140).aspx
94. Re:Oh no... by iamhigh · 2009-11-04 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I have used some stuff like that, but it only works when outlook is open. if you could write a background app to connect to others when outlook is closed it would actually give you the feeling of a server... the outlook plugins just can't do that.
  
  --
  No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Never even heard of it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:37 · Score: 0

I don't use Microsoft products, but am I missing something here? What is .pst used for exactly?
1. Re:Never even heard of it by zn0k · 2009-10-26 10:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "Data portability has become an increasing need for our customers and partners as more information is stored and shared in digital formats. One scenario that has come up recently is how to further improve platform-independent access to email, calendar, contacts, and other data generated by Microsoft Outlook.
  On desktops, this data is stored in Outlook Personal Folders, in a format called a .pst file"
  Straight from the link in the summary.
2. Re:Never even heard of it by lbalbalba · 2009-10-26 10:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What is .pst used for exactly?
  
  The 'PST' or 'Personal STore' file contains the Outlook/Outlook Express Message Mail Box.
3. Re:Never even heard of it by sjames · 2009-10-26 10:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's MS's overly complicated version of a mail spool file.
4. Re:Never even heard of it by ettlz · 2009-10-26 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't use Microsoft products, but am I missing something here? What is .pst used for exactly?
  Dunno. Think it's something the "need-a-machine-to-run-my-life" types use.
5. Re:Never even heard of it by ZarathustraDK · 2009-10-26 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  It's the file that's supposed to contain the imbecile users mail-archives and private folders as a local backup when they save them as such. Only thing is, users keep forgetting to put a mark in "include subfolders" and so they loose 3 years of mail when the EEEEEVIIIIIILL supporter shows up to swap their old POS for a new shiny one. BOOOOOHOOOOO.
  
  --
  If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
6. Re:Never even heard of it by maxume · 2009-10-26 10:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Outlook Express never used PST files (but it could import them).
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
7. Re:Never even heard of it by lbalbalba · 2009-10-26 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Outlook Express never used PST files
  
  Sorry, My Bad...
8. Re:Never even heard of it by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2009-10-26 11:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  the fun part is when they let the pst grow to 1G or so and the file corrupts itself.
  
  --
  "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
9. Re:Never even heard of it by elronxenu · 2009-10-26 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  With a 1980s-era 3-character file extension, to be sure.
  A documented binary format is better than an undocumented one, but it would be better to enable import/export of XML files or some other standard encapsulation.
10. Re:Never even heard of it by RichardJenkins · 2009-10-26 11:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's like saying a blimp is an overly complicated way to cross the street.
11. Re:Never even heard of it by Com2Kid · 2009-10-26 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Try upgrading to a version of Outlook that isn't so archaic. I have 10GB+ PSTs laying around.
  
  --
  Need help treating your acne? Come here!
12. Re:Never even heard of it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Or maybe the stupid admin should learn how to support users that aren't technically savy in such a way that doesn't loose those users' data.
  A user that doesn't know how to admin a machine and perform lossless backups and restores is just ignorant.
  An admin that doesn't know how to perform lossless backups and restores is incompetent.
13. Re:Never even heard of it by calzones · 2009-10-26 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  the most witty comment I've ever read on slashdot. thank you for a hearty laugh :)
  
  --
  Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
14. Re:Never even heard of it by The+Wild+Norseman · 2009-10-26 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Try upgrading to a version of Outlook that isn't so archaic. I have 10GB+ PSTs laying around.
  Seriously? And this is brag-worthy how again?
  
  --
  "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
15. Re:Never even heard of it by schon · 2009-10-26 11:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A documented binary format is better than an undocumented one
  As long as
  A) the documentation describes the stuff that exists in the real world, rather than what it would look like in some alternate universe (as is MS's usual tactic.)
  and
  B) the documentation isn't a bunch of "OOMXL"-like "implement this like Outlook 97 did"
16. Re:Never even heard of it by alexborges · 2009-10-26 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  "I have 10GB+ PSTs laying around."
  Ah, its you who have been eating up all the cycles in the Cray.
  
  --
  NO SIG
17. Re:Never even heard of it by raddan · 2009-10-26 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  You have to upgrade to Outlook 2007 to get sane behavior, though. For some odd reason, Outlook 2003 refuses to use the 2k3 PST format when doing anything BUT Exchange. If, e.g., you are communicating with an IMAP server, it still uses the old Outlook 97 format for its cache file. This means that if you're say, the kind of person who might like to move large amounts of email around (e.g., IT person or other mail administrator), you cannot use Outlook 2003 unless you want to remove and re-add the IMAP account to Outlook every few minutes. Outlook 2007 fixes that one, but it took, what, 10 years to fix it?
  
  In Outlook 2007, you still can't select an entire mail folder (where message count exceeds something like 300 messages) and expect to move that mail to another folder. Outlook complains that it is out of memory. This bug has been in Outlook forever. This is a joke-- a freshman CS student should know how to solve that one.
  
  Outlook 2007 made my machine grind to a halt. So I'm back on 2003, because I HAVE to use Outlook at work.
18. Re:Never even heard of it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's the only format that even semi-reliably can be used to import/export data to/from Outlook.
  I've tried working with some of the other "formats" Outlook "supports" (years ago admittedly, I think Outlook 2000). They were horrible and twisted enough that at the time I just couldn't explain it with pure incompetence...
  My trust in human incompetence has since increased so I'm not accusing them of maliciously messing with the more open export formats they claimed to support. Still, it was quite clear that the people who were given the task of designing those formats and implementing those exporters were totally out of their league and their work wasn't really tested.
19. Re:Never even heard of it by bensode · 2009-10-26 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot about the lazy admin that painstakingly documents the step by step process (including screenshots) of creating and maintaining PST files for users but neglects to inform them to never ever EVER copy a PST file that is open in an Outlook session. Oh and my favorite scenario is when there are hundreds of PST files on a single file server that open with Outlook and remain open/active all day/night without forced logoff policy. I love when I stumble on admins that recommend that they use the PST on a network share so they can be "backed up".
  
  --
  "Keep at least 3-6 full bottles of hard alcohol on hand, a 2 week resignation notice,..." - Poetmatt
20. Re:Never even heard of it by TheRealMindChild · 2009-10-26 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, the reason it saves it in "Such an old format" is because it is the least common denominator. ODBC for data storage if you will.
  
  Nextly, the "bug" is likely the way the underlying libraries handle the situation, not the application itself. That doesn't make it any better, but MS is great about keeping old code around. Nobody has probably looked at that code in literally years. No freshmen CS is going to be able to outcode management's blind decisions.
  
  Lastly, no one in 2009 is still plagued with these problems unless they live under a rock. Unfortunately, there are still way too many of them.
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
21. Re:Never even heard of it by GIL_Dude · 2009-10-26 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, folks who are running older versions of Outlook do indeed have a 2 GiB limit - and it will approach and hit that limit without warning and corrupt. Newer versions of Outlook have a PST format that doesn't have such a limit, but even with the newer Outlook executable if the users are still using files in the old format the 2 GiB limit applies. For new files, in the last couple versions of Outlook - not so much.
22. Re:Never even heard of it by zenray · 2009-10-26 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  Outlook personal data files *.pst files hold the archived data. The copy of the Exchange database is in the *.ost file. Let microsoft release that file format and we might be able to replace the Exchange data store.
  
  --
  zenray
23. Re:Never even heard of it by sarhjinian · 2009-10-26 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  The hard limit is 2GB, but you can have amusing things happen at any size. Heck, use Outlook for IMAP and it pretty much guaranteed to corrupt your IMAP store's PST. The recommended solution? Exchange Server.
  The part that galls me, though, is how users gasp "But how could this possibly happen?" and then get really twitchy about attempting to fix it. People place, I feel, too much faith in computers in general, but Outlook has an incredible white-knight reputation. It's literally the Teflon application: no matter how much it fucks up, corrupts data, gets compromised, fails to run, stalls, kills small children, etc., it's reputation cannot be besmirched among the general population. I'm boggled, I really am.
  
  --
  --srj/mmv
24. Re:Never even heard of it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize there is a tool in the office folder called scanpst.exe which fixes that? And linux people get so uppity when you don't know about some super obscure command buried in the system...
25. Re:Never even heard of it by Falconhell · 2009-10-26 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Outlook Express uses .PBX as its filke format.
  And .PST includes contacts as well as mail.
26. Re:Never even heard of it by Kalriath · 2009-10-26 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, Exchange data is still in (ugly) JET databases on the server, and the OST is only the Offline Folders on the client (for when Cached Exchange Mode is enabled).
  The Exchange RPC and EWS specs are open, so you could just implement those and dump the contents in an SQLite database or something instead.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
27. Re:Never even heard of it by darkpixel2k · 2009-10-26 14:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Data portability has become an increasing need for our customers and partners as more information is stored and shared in digital formats. One scenario that has come up recently is how to further improve platform-independent access to email, calendar, contacts, and other data generated by Microsoft Outlook.
  As a linux mail admin, I'm excited that there may soon be a possibility for Dovecot to deliver mail directly into a 2 GB .pst file sitting on my mail server because the PST format*snort* is so*choke* superior to maildHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry--I couldn't keep a straight face.
  
  --
  There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
28. Re:Never even heard of it by afidel · 2009-10-26 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Hahaha, yeah SQLite better than Jet Blue, *laugh*. Sorry but while Exchange data store corruption CAN occur it doesn't very often, and hasn't much at all since Exchange 2003. In fact for systems that lack the care and feeding that a DBA gives to your typical large scale database I think they do remarkably well. I have a love hate relationship with Exchange (I've been certified since 5.5) and while I did on occasion get called in to clean up a nasty Exchange related problem, I only had to deal with two major data problems in all those years. I've seen much worse problems with Notes, Groupwise, and Maildir based solution then I have with Exchange.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
29. Re:Never even heard of it by rubi · 2009-10-26 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen massive PST files, and tough they seem to work, I don't want to be the one to try and recover them once corruption sets in. Also, sometimes Outlook (2007) takes forever to open them. One of our executives never closes her mail only for that reason.
30. Re:Never even heard of it by haruharaharu · 2009-10-26 16:37 · Score: 1
  
  Firstly, the reason it saves it in "Such an old format" is because it is the least common denominator. ODBC for data storage if you will.
  So what? You should have the option (or default to) to save in the new format without using exchange 2k3
  
  Nextly, the "bug" is likely the way the underlying libraries handle the situation, not the application itself.
  
  So what? MS can't version libraries now?
  
  --
  Reboot macht Frei.
31. Re:Never even heard of it by spitzak · 2009-10-26 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  the "bug" is likely the way the underlying libraries handle the situation, not the application itself. That doesn't make it any better, but MS is great about keeping old code around. Nobody has probably looked at that code in literally years. No freshmen CS is going to be able to outcode management's blind decisions.
  Actually this should be possible. If you can move ONE message, then the freshman should be able to fix the program so that it divides the selection up into individual messages and tells the database to do each move independently. Unless a single message is too big, this will work.
  I think this is what the original poster was getting at, and I agree it should be possible to fix this bug no matter what the back end is doing.
32. Re:Never even heard of it by secolactico · 2009-10-26 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  And calendar, and tasks, and memos, and pretty much any kind of data you managed with Outlook.
  Personally, Outlook is not my favorite e-mail client, but for integration of PIM features with email, I've yet to find something that works as well as it does.
  
  --
  No sig
33. Re:Never even heard of it by cgenman · 2009-10-26 17:22 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  'PST' stands for 'Personal Serial Trauma.' It is a highly advanced self-modifying file, which even after 2 years of continual use will keep up to 90% of your bits accurate. It's such a solid format, that Microsoft even ships tools with it to repair the file in the unlikely event that's you'd want it working again.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
34. Re:Never even heard of it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 17:52 · Score: 0
  
  worse is in Office 2007 where a user can go over 2 gigs easily. What a corruption nightmare.
35. Re:Never even heard of it by bemymonkey · 2009-10-26 18:53 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It isn't, but what's surprising is how EASY it is to hit 10GB with a PST file - you'd think that that the incredible slowness in Outlook was caused by some sort of mega compression that reduces the file size to a tenth of what it was, but nooooo, I guess it's just a feature - gotta have time to drink some coffee and have a donut while switching between IMAP folders...
36. Re:Never even heard of it by Bert64 · 2009-10-26 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  And you require the latest version in order to handle files this large? The only thing stopping unix machines from 20+ years ago having gigs and gigs of mail is the physical capacity of the disks.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
37. Re:Never even heard of it by imakemusic · 2009-10-26 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  [...] laying around.
  Yeah, have tried actually using them?
  
  Exactly.
  
  --
  Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
38. Re:Never even heard of it by petermgreen · 2009-10-27 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  In my experiance the "fixed" pst files while just about readable have a lot of problems. Things like lots of mail being dumped in one folder and being able to view mails but not copy them out of the bad pst files.
  Has this improved since outlook 2K (the last version I used)?
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
39. Re:Never even heard of it by Com2Kid · 2009-10-27 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  In Outlook 2007, you still can't select an entire mail folder (where message count exceeds something like 300 messages) and expect to move that mail to another folder. Outlook complains that it is out of memory. This bug has been in Outlook forever. This is a joke-- a freshman CS student should know how to solve that one.
  I have moved thousands upon thousands of messages from one folder to another.
  It took for freaken ever, but it worked. Definently not the best supported scenario though.
  Moving messages from one PST to another, now THAT is painful! Functional but painful.
  (I have in excess of 30GB of PST files total, I may have hit almost every single limitation in the PST format so far, including Outlook 2k7's 20GB PST limit)
  
  --
  Need help treating your acne? Come here!
40. Re:Never even heard of it by BitZtream · 2009-10-27 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Which hasn't been an issue if you installed updates that were 5 years old or more at this point.
  And the size was 2G, not one.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
41. Re:Never even heard of it by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  the fun part is when they let the pst grow to 1G or so and the file corrupts itself.
  Regularily happens with Thunderbird's mbox format ....
42. Re:Never even heard of it by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2009-10-27 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, the size was 1G back in the day. Judging from the comments here, even that isn't safe with the current version of the file. Best to use a DB/spool if you need a lot of mail kept around.
  
  --
  "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
43. Re:Never even heard of it by Kalriath · 2009-10-27 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't really hate Exchange at all. I use it myself, and loathe all the constant bashing about "constant Exchange DB corruption" (seriously, I've never seen it happen). But you can't say (earlier version of) JET is a good format. I still reckon they should let you stick it in MSSQL databases.
  Also, the SQLite was a joke, though OSS folks would I'm sure love to do that.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
WTF ? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:38 · Score: 0

Is this because of the EU pressure ? It's gotta be, right ? Like, 'No Way In Hell' that Microsoft is doing this out of their own free will ?
1. Re:WTF ? by Kalriath · 2009-10-26 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's because PST is of no value. In Microsoft's opinion, "disk is cheap. Give your users bigger mailboxes already".
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
While we're at it, Entourage database format? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:41 · Score: 0

This is another undocumented file format from The Beast, and one that's particularly nasty once it's become corrupted in any manner (the recovery tools supplied by MSFT generally Won't Work[tm].
I'm not really sure I care by ifwm · 2009-10-26 10:42 · Score: 1

It's nice, but like everything else related to MS, they wouldn't be doing it unless they had something to gain, and anything good for MS is bad for everyone else in the long run.
I don't believe anyone cares by jcoy42 · 2009-10-26 10:43 · Score: 1, Flamebait

If we had actually wanted it, we would have gone ahead and figured it out for ourselves.

--
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
1. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up, for heaven's sake mod parent up.
2. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Are they also going to release the source for the various data-destroying bugs in Outlook? 'Cause the PST format isn't complete without those, and some arbitrary 2GB limits as well...
3. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by sparkydevil · 2009-10-26 10:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Count me as one who cares. I've had .pst file of old outlook mail sitting around for at least seven years waiting for this kind of news. Being able to import it directly into gmail would be very useful.
4. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by Shag · 2009-10-26 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  I support or endorse the parent post. I'm struggling to think of a file format less desirable than PST, in any area of computing. PICT images maybe?
  
  --
  Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
5. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by jcoy42 · 2009-10-26 10:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You can just drag those messages off to another machine running IMAP and then have google pop them off from there.
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
6. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by benbean · 2009-10-26 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  You may already be aware, or just be wanting a completely non-Microsoft solution, but just in case, assuming you still have access to Outlook you could always open the pst in Outlook, set up your Google Mail as an IMAP account in the same Outlook instance and drag and drop your old mail.
  
  --
  It's a Unix system - I know this.
7. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by usacomp2k3 · 2009-10-26 17:40 · Score: 1
  
  The lack of folders in gmail prevents me from doing exactly that.
8. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by atamido · 2009-10-26 19:13 · Score: 1
  
  You can just drag those messages off to another machine running IMAP and then have google pop them off from there.
  That's what I did. I had Google auto-label the emails it pulled out of the IMAP accounts. Sadly, I somehow lost a lot of my emails at one point, but I still have most of them going back to 2000 imported into my Gmail account.
9. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by fjin · 2009-10-26 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  "Being able to import it directly into gmail would be very useful." Install Thunderbird. Import Outlook mails. Setup second email address as IMAP to Gmail. then drag and drop from OldMail Inbox to Gmail Inbox in Thunderbird. Now you can read your Gmail, including old mails from Thunderbird And WebMail.
10. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by webreaper · 2009-10-26 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  Gmail has folders. They're just called 'labels', and an email can be cross-referenced to appear under multiple labels, or folders.
  I imported my last 7 years' mail from Outlook into Gmail using the IMAP drag-n-drop solution mentioned above, and it works a treat. If you drag the mails folder-by-folder, each Outlook folder will have a label autogenerated (e.g., a folder called 'family' will be created as a label 'INBOX\family'). You can rename the labels (to remove the 'inbox\' part) later, once the import is complete.
  Main caveat to this technique is make sure you allow enough time - it takes several hours for hundreds of thousands of emails to be imported this way, and if you abort and restart you have to manually work out which ones already got transferred (easier if you use move rather than copy, obviously).
11. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by teridon · 2009-10-26 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe.. just maybe .. he wants to do it without installing Outlook.
  
  --
  I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
12. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by rcharbon · 2009-10-27 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you've had the mail sitting around for 7 years without using it, maybe, just maybe, you can delete it?
13. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by Orbijx · 2009-10-27 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Folders in the traditional sense feel relatively useless once you've adjusted to labels.
  I use Gmail to check a few different email accounts. I'm a member of a couple of different sites that serve similar purposes, and registered under two different email addresses. They go to their primary labels for the accounts I check, but also get an additional label according to what they are. So I can look in either the label for the account I'm checking, or look in the label for the relevant content.
  For me, this feels faster, because I can get right to things I'm interested to first, and check the rest of the stuff I receive later
  Example:
  I get emails from Jamendo, Magnatune, and Amie Street, all from different email addresses.
  Amie.st and Magnatune arrive via the pop3 account labeled [Prime], Jamendo arrives via [Unchain].
  All three of them get an additional label, [Musics], so when I log in, all I have to do is look at the [Musics] label to see that there's something new that interests me there. The mail I get looks like this as a result:
  Amie Street - Get 50% off when you reload credits - [Musics][Prime]
  Jamendo - Stop HADOPI now! - [Musics][Unchain]
  Amie Street - New in Hip-Hop - [Musics][Prime]
  Having both labels is relatively important for me, since it's part of the way I remember my login information for each of the sites. Else, I'm likely to try the wrong login repeatedly and get myself locked out when I really don't want to be locked out. :)
  
  --
  One of these days, I am going to flip out. When I flip out, I'll be back in five minutes.
14. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by BitZtream · 2009-10-27 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Install old version of Outlook
  Configure GMAIL as an IMAP server in Outlook
  Drag messages to GMAIL
  GMail was created by a company named Google, Google has this cool thing called a search engine. The search engine could have solved this problem for you years ago.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
15. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by abonstu · 2009-10-27 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  amen to that!
  
  all the options for getting data out of PST files are currently really crappy and you lose your PST DB structure (im looking at you MAPI).
  
  it would be AWESOME to vortex my 12 years of archived PST files into gmail.
16. Re:I don't believe anyone cares by bjb · 2009-10-30 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not an archivist, are you?
  Lots of people like to save their emails - some kind of window into what was happening in your life at that point. Of course, depends heavily on what kind of content is in your inbox...
  
  --
  Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Simple: three words by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:46 · Score: 0

DO NOT WANT.
Why would someone purposely subject themselves to the abomination that is .pst ?
1. Re:Simple: three words by jamstar7 · 2009-10-26 12:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why would someone purposely subject themselves to the abomination that is .pst ?
  To update to Thunderbird, or Pronto like I use. It's particularly useful for business users wanting to migrate off Outlook and have access to a decent code monkey.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
2. Re:Simple: three words by Macgrrl · 2009-10-26 13:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I thought that, until I joined an organisation that used Lotus Notes.
  PST oh how I miss thee.
  
  --
  Sara
  Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Nice by ZarathustraDK · 2009-10-26 10:47 · Score: 1

Should make migration to Zimbra easier.

--
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
1. Re:Nice by Galactic+Dominator · 2009-10-26 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  for bloated, hard customize, even harder to build pig zimbra is, may as well use exchange.
  Try Horde and maintain system requirements more inline with *nix standard workloads on a per user basis.
  
  --
  brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
Standard Slashdot response by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

This is yet ANOTHER example of Microsoft's continual battle against the open source community! This company is EVIL and needs to be destroye..
Oh wait.
Yet another MS "spec"... by hugortega · 2009-10-26 10:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember OOXML? ... http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/21/1821251
1. Re:Yet another MS "spec"... by harlows_monkeys · 2009-10-26 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  Quote from the link you gave:
  
  How many other fast-tracked ISO standards have no conforming implementations.
  Answer: at least one. ODF.
  Did you have a point?
2. Re:Yet another MS "spec"... by mvdwege · 2009-10-27 09:06 · Score: 1
  Kindly back up the following two assertions you made:
  
  ODF was fast-tracked.
  ODF had no conforming implementation.
  Did you have a point? Or are you just going to spew empty assertions?
  Mart
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
I can't help but wonder what their motives are... by mirix · 2009-10-26 10:51 · Score: 1

But regardless, open is a good thing.

I don't see much use for it though.

--
Sent from my PDP-11
Then explain this by ifwm · 2009-10-26 10:51 · Score: 5, Informative

If we had actually wanted it, we would have gone ahead and figured it out for ourselves.
Um, ok, then explain this
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Import_.pst_files
and this
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst/rn01re01.html
1. Re:Then explain this by jcoy42 · 2009-10-26 11:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well.. um.. the first one shows that we don't care, and the second one shows that we would figure it out if we wanted it.
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
2. Re:Then explain this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Don't tar us all with the same brush. You use "we" as a term for "similarly narrow-minded people who put in cheap shots at Microsoft because they've nothing constructive to say", I guess?
3. Re:Then explain this by http · 2009-10-26 13:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If you'd actually read the first one, you'd know that 'we' have already figured it out (and it lists several tools to do so), and that Thunderbird assumes that it's YOUR job to convert from some arbitrary proprietary file format.
  I mean, seriously, why should TB re-invent the wheel? If theres' one thing i learned from my first library algorithms class, is that if you re-invent the wheel, you're going to take longer and end up with something that isn't likely to be round. The NIH syndrome is very wasteful of human resources.
  
  --
  If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
  3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
4. Re:Then explain this by jcoy42 · 2009-10-26 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  If they cared, they would add it as a file format they recognized. Additionally, as I pointed out in the second half of that sentence you so studiously read, I know we already figured it out. It's one of the tools listed on the first page, which makes it pretty much redundant.
  But we don't care about PST format. We really don't. If we did, we'd use it or treat is as something other than a completely separate issue for the user to sort out with a few pointers to shut them up.
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
5. Re:Then explain this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 18:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Wrong. Virtually all the tools listed either don't work at all, haven't been updated in 6-7 years, and/or partially work but not for OL 2003+ PST files.
  I know of no pure open source solution that can read 2003 and 2007 PST files. The ones that can read 98 and 2000 file do so OK, but with many bugs.
  So in short you are wrong - no one can do it.
6. Re:Then explain this by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-26 18:30 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I mean, seriously, why should TB re-invent the wheel?
  Do you really not understand this? It's really very simple. It' is better for one programmer to spend 100 hours implementing a .pst import function for Thunderbird than for 10,000 users to spend 2+ hours each (make that 5+ when it is a Linux user who has to install Windows, then Outlook just to import a .pst file) figuring out how to import their data. I don't know what your class taught you but I'm pretty sure most schools teach that it's better to spend 1 hour of programmer time than 100 hours of user time. It usually comes right after the lesson about how computers are supposed to make human life less tedious etc.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
7. Re:Then explain this by Rennt · 2009-10-26 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  You use "similarly narrow-minded people who put in cheap shots at Microsoft because they've nothing constructive to say" as a term for "user", I guess?
8. Re:Then explain this by Rennt · 2009-10-26 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  It' is better for one programmer to spend 100 hours implementing a .pst import function for Thunderbird than for 10,000 users to spend 2+ hours each figuring out how to import their data.
  Better for who? Not for Mozilla, their current users, or most of their potential users either. This wizard will be run (only once!) by a small fraction of users that Mozilla don't actually have yet.
  Consider first that you now have to maintain a backwards-engineered MS file format(!!DANGER!!), then consider the opportunity cost.
  
  I don't know what your class taught you but I'm pretty sure most schools teach that it's better to spend 1 hour of programmer time than 100 hours of user time.
  Business schools do, but ONLY when you are actually paying users to use the programs you develop.
9. Re:Then explain this by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, just trying not to be an arrogant jackass when it comes to discussing software. Your turn.
10. Re:Then explain this by jcoy42 · 2009-10-27 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  You want constructive? Okay.
  Dear Microsoft-
  As I so often pointed out 13 years ago before I gave up, it would be great if you would stop inventing horrible broken file formats and implementations when the community has already RFC'd, developed, and worked out the kinks to solve a given problem. It's only going to make extra work for us in the long run and we're actually trying to get work done here.
  Thanks!
  
  --
  Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
11. Re:Then explain this by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-27 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  This wizard will be run (only once!) by a small fraction of users that Mozilla don't actually have yet.
  If your criteria is that you shouldn't write something for users you don't yet have then you are in big trouble. As for "small fraction", so far this has not been part of the discussion and I doubt you have any idea what percentage of users would want this ability. I know I don't know. As for "only once!", I can envisage situations where import would be done more than once by a user.
  Business schools do, but ONLY when you are actually paying users to use the programs you develop.
  Ummmm no actually, it's CS departments that teach that. Along with usability and other esoteric things you may have no use for. Both business and CS departments would also teach that increased ease of use promotes user acceptance and ultimately wider adoption. And if you'd care to get philosophical about it then it is better for the human race that 1 programmer spend 100 hours doing something than 100,000 users spend 2 hours doing something. If you want to believe differently then that's obviously your right, but I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
12. Re:Then explain this by ifwm · 2009-10-27 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  If they cared, they would add it as a file format they recognized.
  It must suck to be so totally incapable of admitting you were wrong.
  You're really very pathetic.
13. Re:Then explain this by ifwm · 2009-10-27 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Virtually all the tools listed either don't work at all, haven't been updated in 6-7 years, and/or partially work but not for OL 2003+ PST files.
  You didn't read the links. No, please don't say you did, you'd realize that nothing you said there was true if you had read the links.
  
  I know of no pure open source solution that can read 2003 and 2007 PST files
  That's because you didn't actually read the links. I see why you posted AC, you knew you were talking out of your ass and didn't want your name attached.
  
  So in short you are wrong
  
  Funny, that's what everyone is saying to you.
14. Re:Then explain this by ifwm · 2009-10-27 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well.. um.. the first one shows that we don't care, and the second one shows that we would figure it out if we wanted it.
  Ooooh, that's a nice try, but the correct answer is you were wrong.
  Don't worry, it's notthe end of the world, but spamming the thread with trollish replies just because I proved you wrong is kinda silly, so knock it off.
PST format a dad design idea from the start by bomanbot · 2009-10-26 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Its good to see Microfsoft open up the Outlook PST format, if only to improve importing into other mail clients like Thunderbird etc.

But honestly, using the PST format in other applications sounds like a terrible idea to me: Those monolithic PST files, which Outlook uses to store mail data get corrupted easily (at least in my experience) and storing all your email data in one gigantic file always struck me as a really bad design choice anyway.
1. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  SQLite called, they want you to stop dissing the "one gigantic file" concept :(
2. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by jellomizer · 2009-10-26 11:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly that is why they are opening it. The next version of Outlook will use a new format.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:12 · Score: 0
  
  mbox called, they want you to stop using sqlite as a good example of a mail program storing things in one big file.
4. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  Haha, mbox, the lol format that used to break if an email contained the word "From". Classic example of kludgejob unix ineptitude.
5. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  The corruption isn't a fault of the spec, it's the implementation. A proper implementation wouldn't have this problem. This also means you'll eventually be able to take .pst files form your day job (where they might use Outlook) and keep a copy at home in Thuderbird. I really don't see a down side to this.
6. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Eil · 2009-10-26 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Ask anyone who's worked in the capacity of corporate I.T. helpdesk peon what they think of .PST files and your answer every single time will be a punch in the face.
7. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Chris+Mattern · 2009-10-26 13:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Agreed that nobody else will want to use this awful, awful format. However, opening it is very important, as it now makes easy to get your mail *out* of that format. There's a lot people's mail locked up in a lot of PST files with no easy way to get them out.
8. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty sure Thunderbird chose the same route, for what it's worth.
  Right now I'm looking at "C:\Users\###\AppData\Roaming\Thunderbird\Profiles\###.default\ImapMail\mail.mydomain.net\INBOX", a 96.2 MB file.
9. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 14:15 · Score: 0
  
  Haha, mbox, the lol format that used to break if an email contained the word "From". Classic example of kludgejob unix ineptitude.
  Ummm, no. The problem would only occur if a new line in the message started with "From". And all email server software knew this, so it would replace a new line "From" with ">From" or something similar.
  And for you younguns, with mbox files the "From" on a new line indicates the start of a new message.
10. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by antdude · 2009-10-26 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  "PST format a dad design idea from the start" -- PST is a father design? :)
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
11. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-26 18:36 · Score: 1
  
  storing all your email data in one gigantic file always struck me as a really bad design choice anyway.
  I agree - it's unfortunate that TBird does that as well. Either make each folder a directory and each message a file or, as someone suggested above, use SQL databases to store the messages.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
12. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by HigH5 · 2009-10-26 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  That was my first thought about this news. It's actually useless to MS as well to others except for export/import applications. But MS gains publicity about openness. On the other hand, AFAIK ISO standards actually work on this principle, but we couldn't say that in the case of Office Open XML
  
  --
  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse delendam.
13. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by atamido · 2009-10-26 19:16 · Score: 1
  
  I thought TBird used a different file for each folder. Is that not correct?
14. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by atamido · 2009-10-26 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  The corruption isn't a fault of the spec, it's the implementation. A proper implementation wouldn't have this problem.
  This is not necessarily true. Some designs are inherently more resilient to the natural random corruption which can occur on computers. The issues with PST files may be the result of poor implementation from Outlook, or it may be the design of PST files themselves. It would require close inspection of the specification to know for sure.
15. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by msormune · 2009-10-26 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  Because a single PST file is harder to automatically backup on a daily basis that multiple files spanning in numerous mail directories?
16. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by bomanbot · 2009-10-26 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Doh! Yeah, sorry about that :) I guess I could not decide whether PST was a bad format or a dud, so naturally, it became a dad ;)
17. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  Ummm, no. The problem would only occur if a new line in the message started with "From". And all email server software knew this, so it would replace a new line "From" with ">From" or something similar.
  Your point being? I mean PST files suck, but mbox... give me a fucking break. The only thing they have going for them (and to be honest, it is handy), is the fact that they are almost pure text files.
18. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by petermgreen · 2009-10-27 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed it is, a single pst file means that with every incremental backup (IIRC outlook changes the file even if you don't change anything inside it) the whole file (which can potentially get pretty big, hitting the 2GB limit of older PST versions was a common source of corrupt PST files) needs to be backed up again. This can quickly get very unweildly.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
19. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by antdude · 2009-10-27 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. :) I was just teasing you for the silly typo. :)
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
20. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by bruthasj · 2009-10-27 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  In Unix, storing all your email data in one gigantic file is called mbox. And, there's all sorts of vim-vs-emacs-like threads about it and maildir. You'd also be surprised about various online email systems that do something similar with a bit of redundancy via replication.
21. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by BitZtream · 2009-10-27 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Its already relatively easy. You don't need to know the PST format, you just need Outlook installed and a plugin to export the data, which there have been for YEARS.
  This just means that someone can get data out of a PST with Outlook installed, which is going to be a pretty rare corner case.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
22. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-10-27 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes that is my understanding. So if one were (what I assume is) a typical user then one's entire inbox is a single file. I think it would be much better to have it be a directory and each message be a file or for it to be a sql db and each message an entry in that db. I'm pretty sure *nix directories are no longer O(n**2) to search.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
23. Re:PST format a dad design idea from the start by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  But it was always easy to get the stuff out of pst files - you can use MAPI or CDO to read the data. These interfaces are documented reasonably well and they can read write pst files.
Sounds like good news. by WhiteFluffyChest · 2009-10-26 10:53 · Score: 0

I like pst files because my whole mailbox can fit into just one file, which is very neat and tidy.
But I wonder about the complexity of them internally. Also, they may have features from Outlook that are legally protected. So if you implement all the features you could in effect be copying Outlook or be restricted to the Outlook feature set.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by maxrate · 2009-10-26 10:54 · Score: 1

Attitudes are changing at Microsoft - they are still a business and can't go 'open' over night however. I don't see much use for opening up PST either... maybe I'm missing something.
Who cares about PST files anymore? by spectre_240sx · 2009-10-26 10:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd wager that Microsoft is willing to do this because the .pst format is becoming irrelevant. Medium and large businesses already want nothing to do with them due to issues with performance and management. That leaves small businesses and a small number of home users. With hosted exchange options becoming more common among small businesses, the need for .pst files is going away very quickly.
1. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-10-26 11:25 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  .pst is an Outlook message database, not Exchange message database. It doesn't matter where your Exchange is hosted, if you use Outlook to connect to it, it caches local copies of all data you worked with in a .pst file on your machine.
2. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Bazman · 2009-10-26 11:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Our central IT dept gives us something like 100MB of quota on the Exchange server. Running out of quota? The official advice is 'save your stuff in a PST file'.
  Of course you can't save your PST on the IT dept-supplied backed-up network drive because MS say "don't do that". So people end up with PST files on unbacked-up local storage on a particular machine...
3. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Monoman · 2009-10-26 12:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Bingo! I believe MS has already banned PSTs in house. The writing is on the wall where I work. Too many times PST get corrupted which turns into support nightmares for the VIP customers. Once the VIPs (they sign the checks) are sold on getting rid of PSTs and expanding the mailbox sizes they will pay the bill.
  
  --
  Keep the Classic Slashdot.
4. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by sarhjinian · 2009-10-26 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think I work for the same people you do.
  
  --
  --srj/mmv
5. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 13:36 · Score: 0
  
  No, not exactly. The offline cache is provided by an .OST file - a distant relative. The PST file is used for non-Exchange-connected clients, and for portability of data. An Exchange server connection would not create a PST file on the client.
6. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Kalriath · 2009-10-26 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  It's more common than you think.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
7. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by MarcQuadra · 2009-10-26 15:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's more than MS saying 'don't do that'!
  The PST format requires a lot of small direct I/O, and when you mount one over CIFS/SMB you run the serious chance of filling up the queues on the client or even the server. I've brought down a fully-loaded and patched Server 2003 box with a PST -> PST transfer over the wire, and by 'down' I mean really down, not responsive, not accepting new connections, and needing a reboot.
  I've restored so many corrupt PST files from backup that I'm considering setting up a Dovecot IMAP server just as a mail archive for my users. It wouldn't send or receive mail, just act as an 'archive' for stuff they want to keep around forever.
  
  --
  "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
8. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by spectre_240sx · 2009-10-26 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of reasons, beyond performance, why this is a bad idea. I'm well aware that it's done, but I would expect it won't be common for too much longer. How do you handle an e-discovery request when you have PSTs in unknown locations? What happens when a lawyer knows you have something and then it gets lost? It's nasty territory to be in.
9. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by usacomp2k3 · 2009-10-26 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  The same here. Only they have a "anything older than 21 days gets deleted" policy, which is why I have a .pst file that is over 1gb, and that is having exported all attachments over 1mb.
10. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by ajlisows · 2009-10-26 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  An .OST file caches local copies of your mailbox for offline use/possibly faster accessing of messages. The file and folder structure of an .OST file cannot be changed and exactly mirrors the folder structure on the exchange server. A .PST file is where you store actual permanent copies of the messages. You can move the files around into folders that don't exist on the exchange server.
11. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Bazman · 2009-10-26 20:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You're lucky if your PSTs get backed up nicely. Lots of people keep Outlook running all the time, and that means it has an exclusive lock on the PSTs. Then the backup process fails to copy the PST.
  So we have files that aren't on a backed-up server, can't live on a backed-up network share, and often fail to backup from local starage via local back-up systems.
  No wonder people like to print their emails out.
12. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by hughk · 2009-10-26 22:08 · Score: 1
  
  It does annoy me that Gmail gives me more storage and much better uptime than Outlook/Exchange server in most environments.
  I have the *luxury* of 80MB of storage. On a previous role I managed to get 450MB (that was Lotus Notes though) and it was only by saying that given my role, it was vital I kept back emails to cover myself and the company in case of a regulatory inspection.
  
  --
  See my journal, I write things there
13. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  Not necessarily true; with Exchange 2008 and group policey (office 2007 may also be required) you can get ride of the PST files.
14. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Jainith · 2009-10-27 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  One place I worked, we had to impliment a 30 day retention policy, AND scan the network for any *.pst files (and report the user and delete the file). Of course there was an ever expanding list of "important" people whos *.pst files wouldnt be scanned/deleted. CEO, Legal, HR etc...
  The official recommendation became that it was acceptable to archive email in *.txt or *.html formats, because this was no longer E-Mail, and thus was not subject to the retention policy...
  Silly policy, but it became an interesting programming project...
15. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by jollyreaper · 2009-10-27 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  Our central IT dept gives us something like 100MB of quota on the Exchange server. Running out of quota? The official advice is 'save your stuff in a PST file'.
  Of course you can't save your PST on the IT dept-supplied backed-up network drive because MS say "don't do that". So people end up with PST files on unbacked-up local storage on a particular machine...
  I feel your pain.
  I'm completely sold on the utility of a product like Exchange/Outlook but Microsoft's implementation is sorely lacking. IT complains about people wanting to use their email like a file folder but hell, why not? Disk space is disk space. And offloading old mail into PST's just means you're more likely to lose things. And Microsoft's built-in search has been problematic at best. And we're not even yet talking about the backend difficulties of archiving to satisfy data retention policies.
  There is massive room for improvement in the world of Exchange. The interface for end-users is clunky and many things are counter-intuitive. Google is making severe inroads into this very kind of collaborative environment, better than Exchange, better than Sharepoint. The competition should be a good thing.
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
16. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Only 100MB? At work, our average mailbox size is 400MB, with the largest containing something like 3GB of emails. Of course, we have 500GB of storage, and only 30 or so mailboxes.
  I remain shocked that Lotus Notes (version 5, no less) was able to handle this mess for as long as it did. We had the same system in place - the heavier email users archived everything to a local .NSF file (or, in the case of the boss, three of them), but some of the mailboxes on the Domino server were upwards of 1GB, still running on a single server that was state of the art in 2000. Same basic problem with a lack of backups - I think we may have lost at least one of those archive files to disk failure in the past. The only difference - the archives were basically to prevent the server from running out of disk space, rather than to work around quota issues.
  I think Notes / Domino is probably just about the only environment where Exchange / Outlook can seriously be considered an upgrade. It may have a lot of other neat features, but Exchange really kind of sucks as an email server.
  By the way... if the IT department suggests copying potentially important emails to a local, not-backed-up storage device, then they need to be shot. Potential business-related problems caused by lost data aside, what the hell happens when you get audited?
17. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by DarthVain · 2009-10-27 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the fact that PST files are limited to under 2GB otherwise they corrupt. Which means I have like 5 or 6 different repositories of emails. Which wouldn't be so bad if it was just static back up, really sucks when some does an FOI request and I have to search through like 7 places, one at a time due to a limitation by Outlook for records. Lame.
18. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  This is incorrect, Exchange files are cached in a file called a OST. Exchange files never go to a PST unless some manually transfers them
19. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-10-27 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Since there's a bunch of replies pointing out that I'm wrong (though not in a way that makes GP any more correct), how about modding both our incorrect posts down, rather than modding both of them up?..
20. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  .pst is an Outlook message database, not Exchange message database. It doesn't matter where your Exchange is hosted, if you use Outlook to connect to it, it caches local copies of all data you worked with in a .pst file on your machine.
  Actually it stores the local cached data in an .ost file, not .pst file.
  What the differences or similarities are between the two I do not know, but it is NOT a .pst as a local copy.
21. Re:Who cares about PST files anymore? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  Another +1 for dovecot. But we use it for all our company mail. Instead of messing with outlook we have a cheap but ridiculously fast Ubuntu file / mail / print server, which pols our ISP over POP3, and serves mail over IMAP to the internal network.
what happen to the obligatory tag? by MoFoQ · 2009-10-26 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

what happen to the obligatory tag that gets added on Slashdot to a post about Microsoft "opening up" something, the "itsatrap" tag.
here are some prime examples:
Microsoft Partially Opens Proprietary XML Format
(mainly because this happened: Microsoft Open Document Standard Not So Open)
Microsoft Releases Linux Device Drivers As GPL
in fact, there are plenty of other examples in the " itsatrap " tag-egory
1. Re:what happen to the obligatory tag? by marcosdumay · 2009-10-26 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe nobody is yet sure that the current action is really a trap... Altough, comming from Microsoft, it is quite likely, that is why people are trying to figure the plot here.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
2. Re:what happen to the obligatory tag? by _Sprocket_ · 2009-10-26 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  We can also tag the sky "blue" if that helps you.
3. Re:what happen to the obligatory tag? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 11:54 · Score: 0
  
  Parent poster is a typical slashbot freetard, covered with hair and grotesque body odor and bad ideas.
  In reality, nobody uses PST for data exchange and the format was reverse-engineered decades ago. There is no strategic upside to a embrace-extend approach here. itsnotatrap.
4. Re:what happen to the obligatory tag? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  "itsatrap" would only apply if anybody actually gave a fuck about *using* .PST. Given that the only interest anybody's likely to have is, "how do I get data *away* from this .PST", it's less of an issue.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by bsDaemon · 2009-10-26 11:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Their motive is probably to make money, like always -- and like any business. Even RedHat. Sure, RH may employ kernel devs, Gnome devs, etc., but at the end of the day its just to make the system that they sell better.

Opening PST means being able to more freely move Outlook data between mail programs such as Evolution. The more interoperable the mail client is, the less it matters if all your engineers are on Linux and all your marketers are on Windows, as this is likely just a step towards being able to have say, Evolution, fully support being able to talk with an Exchange server. If you can get all of the features of Exchange across platforms at the expense of opening specs of a mail client that they don't really make that much money off of anyway, then they'll likely be able to make some more sales of Exchange server.

From a purely technical point of view, that may or may not be optimal, but if every part of the business could tie in with the Exchange server regardless of what operating system they need to run for the rest of their tasks, then it makes it all the more attractive from a business standpoint.

I could just be off base though, but it seems like that is a possible eventuality. This just has to do with data storage I think, but even being able to import contact lists, mail boxes, etc, more smoothly is a good start, I'd say.
Link to the RFC by hey · 2009-10-26 11:11 · Score: 1

So where's the link to the RFC or other plain text document describing the .PST file?
1. Re:Link to the RFC by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-10-26 11:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Note that the title of TFS is "Microsoft Opening Outlook's PST Format", not "Microsoft Opened Outlook's PST Format".
  The primary source says that " documentation is still in its early stages and work is ongoing".
2. Re:Link to the RFC by godrik · 2009-10-26 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  oh you mean as in "Gaming company working on Duke Nukem Forever" ?
little bit risky by postmortem · 2009-10-26 11:14 · Score: 1

now trojans and spyware can scan outlook data for private information with ease... but yeah openness also means issues with format will be public and fixable.
1. Re:little bit risky by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-10-26 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Trojans don't need .pst format to scan Outlook data - they'd just use MAPI to access it.
  Unless you're speaking of Linux trojans... ~
Who will benefit from this? by zhilla2 · 2009-10-26 11:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

People who program different migration utilities benefit from this, and of course users of such tools. Even wild ideas like Fuse filesystem that mounts it as Maildir.
So, converters, importers, exporters, indexing tools, repair/forensics, optimize/defragment/find duplicates tools, sort, grep.
Also, if its a standard than it needs to be STANDARDIZED, so no special treatment for own products.
1. Re:Who will benefit from this? by Shados · 2009-10-26 11:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Its not a standard. Its just documentation about an internally developped format that was never fully documented before so that the european union finally shuts the hell up. Nothing more. If people find it useful, so much the better.
2. Re:Who will benefit from this? by zhilla2 · 2009-10-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes - but this means they might want to make it ISO standard, which is ruled out if there is no alternative implementation. Once there is (not possible without opening up), there is nothing stopping them to push international standardization, to make EU (and other) shut up even more.
3. Re:Who will benefit from this? by Shados · 2009-10-27 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  They'd have to make a new format altogether like they did for Office I would think. All of these formats were built ad-hoc with little to no documentation, with each iteration just tacking on crap on top (see: Office 2003 format)
  I don't think that stuff can be realistically made a standard, really.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by elronxenu · 2009-10-26 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of Microsoft's attitude changing.
I hear lots of talk and activities such as the Codeplex Foundation, but scratch a little under the surface and it all looks like more of the same old microsoft: crush competitors, destroy alternatives to Microsoft dominance on the desktop, make tactical partnerships and strategically ruin the partner.
Basically when Microsoft holds out the hand of friendship, first check if there's a knife in the other hand.
kckman by kckman · 2009-10-26 11:24 · Score: 1

First thing many corporations turn off is the ability to save mail in PST files. One of the better Group Policies IMHO.
Named Socket interface by RichMan · 2009-10-26 11:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Make your named socket a .pst file and outlook can access your real email database through the defined interface.
Nice and spiffy and you don't end up tied to the Microsoft format.
1. Re:Named Socket interface by cortana · 2009-10-26 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck getting Outlook to open \\pipe\whatever :)
  Hm, can you seek on a file descriptor opened from a pipe?
2. Re:Named Socket interface by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 14:36 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Hm, can you seek on a file descriptor opened from a pipe?
  Not even in the unholy world of Win32 can you do something so nonsensical: Via MSDN: You cannot use the SetFilePointer function with a handle to a non-seeking device such as a pipe or a communications device.
Embrace... by mcbutterbuns · 2009-10-26 11:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Embrace
Extend
Extin... oh wait
It's a trick by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:04 · Score: 0

... get an axe!
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by koiransuklaa · 2009-10-26 12:04 · Score: 1

this is likely just a step towards being able to have say, Evolution, fully support being able to talk with an Exchange server
What? .pst is a import/archive format, it has absolutely no relation to Evolution talking to Exchange.
I Don't Have a .PST by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2009-10-26 12:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have an .ost file on my laptop you insensitive MS clods. Does this great revelation include them?

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
1. Re:I Don't Have a .PST by sshock · 2009-10-26 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  The OST file format is pretty much identical to PST.
2. Re:I Don't Have a .PST by Blue_Wombat · 2009-10-26 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's my problem as well, and apparently IT is about to disable the "export to PST feature". I have about 10GB of email in PST files, which I break into individual .pst chunks of about 1GB for archival backup. IT has already irretrievably lost large quantities of email three times, so I do this myself as a security measure. I can copy the .ost file to my home computer, but unlike .pst files I can't then extract and archive folders (eg Sent-2008) because apparently it needs to connect to the exchange server to do this. I am a non-techie in techie hell on this - is there any easy way to convert an .ost file to a .pst file on a personal machine?
3. Re:I Don't Have a .PST by CoolGopher · 2009-10-26 18:12 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I have an .ost file on my laptop you insensitive MS clods.
  
  In Swedish, a .ost file would imply that you have a .cheese file. Maybe it's a really cheesy format?
4. Re:I Don't Have a .PST by jonbryce · 2009-10-26 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  That means you are talking to an exchange server. Evolution and other programs can get stuff off the exchange server without too much trouble.
5. Re:I Don't Have a .PST by Slashcrap · 2009-10-26 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  is there any easy way to convert an .ost file to a .pst file on a personal machine?
  Yes, pay for one of the pieces of software that does this. They will probably be of wildly variable quality, so make sure to try all of them. Welcome to the wonderful world of commercial Windows software, an area where Linux just can't compete.
Who cares? by Dogbertius · 2009-10-26 12:21 · Score: 1

People have been creating plugins for $10 a pop to do this for nearly a decade now. How about instead of opening a broken format, they open up some Exchange connectivity so that we can use a proper mail client (ie: NOT Outlook) with Exchange? TBird comes to mind. I know that there are workarounds, but why should one mail server be married to one mail client?
1. Re:Who cares? by Kalriath · 2009-10-26 14:13 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, they DID. The EAS protocol has been publicly documented for two years. The EWS protocol since it's inception. There's nothing closed about the Exchange connectivity.
  
  --
  For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
2. Re:Who cares? by spitzak · 2009-10-26 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Care to point to something describing this?
  All my searches seem to reveal that Exchange communicates with something called "MAPI/RPC" and can also emulate POP3 and IMAP protocols.
  There is also OWA, which is apparently the only reliable way to communicate with it and is what the email readers are actually using.
3. Re:Who cares? by SuiteSisterMary · 2009-10-27 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.microsoft.com/protocols/protocol-documentation/interoperability-principles-protocol-documentation/exchange-server-protocols-documentation/ Google too hard for you?
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
4. Re:Who cares? by spitzak · 2009-10-27 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I do not see the letters "EAS" or "EWS" in there.
  Maybe "ESP" for "Exchange Server Protocols" (the title of the page) is close. Other abbreviations I see are "MS-OXDOCO".
  A bit more searching found that "EAS" stands for "Exchange Active Sync". Sorry I did not catch that, as I saw plenty of "Active Sync" documentation but not with "Exchange" in front of it. That's closed anyway.
  Also this paragraph was damn easy to find, apparently "not all is under the open specification promise":
  Patents. Microsoft has patents that may cover your implementations of the technologies described in the Open Specifications. Neither this notice nor Microsoft's delivery of the documentation grants any licenses under those or any other Microsoft patents. However, a given Open Specification may be covered by Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (available here: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp) or the Community Promise (available here: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx). If you would prefer a written license, or if the technologies described in the Open Specifications are not covered by the Open Specifications Promise or Community Promise, as applicable, patent licenses are available by contacting iplg@microsoft.com.
5. Re:Who cares? by SuiteSisterMary · 2009-10-27 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, some of this might be encumbered by licensing requirements. Just like Linux is encumbered by it's own (non-Free, btw) licensing requirements.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
6. Re:Who cares? by spitzak · 2009-10-28 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Linux is encumbered by it's own (non-Free, btw) licensing requirements.
  Okay now I know who I am talking to.
  Too bad, I was really hoping there would be clear information, it seemed perfectly possible that there was actual usable api that OSS programs were ignoring for whatever reason. But it turns out you are another astroturfer.
7. Re:Who cares? by SuiteSisterMary · 2009-10-29 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nice. I apparently don't share your opinons of the GPL, so I'm obviously an astroturfer.
  Guess we can't discuss the BSD or Apache licenses, then.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Pacific Standard Time? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 12:45 · Score: 0

I don't live on the west coast you insensitive clod.
Thank you RMS by Dysphoric1 · 2009-10-26 13:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

And the iconoclastic tree of RMS bears another fruit. You can bet that without the pressure exerted by free and/or open source software and its advocates this would never have happened...
(I now await moderation punishment for having mentioned the name of him is not to be named...)
Awesome! by plazman30 · 2009-10-26 13:23 · Score: 1

So now we can write open source tools to fix corrupt PST files!
Don't even think about doing anything open source with PST files, until you have a tool to fix the files when they go corrupt.
1. Re:Awesome! by ak_hepcat · 2009-10-26 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. I hope somebody writes something better than the POS that mikeysoft supplies.
  I've got a PST that it can't be bothered to fix. Which is quite the pain indeed.
  
  --
  Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
2. Re:Awesome! by WMD_88 · 2009-10-27 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Office comes with a tool to fix corrupted PST files. Works pretty well.
3. Re:Awesome! by plazman30 · 2009-10-29 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  It does. Unless the PST file hits 2 Gigs. Then your only choice is to lose email....
4. Re:Awesome! by WMD_88 · 2009-10-29 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite. The PST files produced by Outlook XP and lower, and by Exchange 2003's exmerge utility, are subject to the 2GB problem. The PSTs producted by Outlook 2003/2007 work fine above 2 gigs, even when using scanpst. I've done it at work several times...the largest I've run it against was about 11GB. (That's still obnoxiously large, though, and the scan/fix took over 3 hours.)
  I did have to use scanpst once on one produced by exmerge, and I found it odd at first that it found the file too big. My only choice was, indeed, to lose email...by running MS's hilarious truncation utility. It's the masochistic IT administrator's dream.
Its dumb by MichaelSmith · 2009-10-26 14:12 · Score: 1

I avoid windows at work but guys who VPN in from home have to load that two gig file across the WAN just to check their mail. I tell them to use rdp or another remote desktop instead.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
1. Re:Its dumb by afidel · 2009-10-26 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Or OWA or RPC over HTTPS with OST cache files. I never let my users have PST's because they are a legal liability. If you have a sane document retention policy and you don't allow PST's it's very easy to say to the lawyers whether or not you have a particular email or set of emails, if you allow PST's then a good lawyer for the opposition can cause you lots of time, money, and pain in discovery costs and possibly miskept information.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
DAMO: Notes & Outlook together by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 15:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

There's a little known piece of middlware from IBM called DAMO. Domino Access for Microsoft Outlook. Domino is the server behind the loathsome Notes client. Basically it maps Notes fields to a PST. Then you can pull all your notes email and calendars into an Outlook .PST. You'll need to pay IBM $100 for the privilege and they're not going to support it for much longer, but if you hate (hate, hate, hate) Notes and need to hit a Domino server, this is cool. For me it's been $100 for three years of sanity for my PIM and no need to deal with Notes. Even the latest 8.5 version seems to be a bunch of badly done java emulating Outlook.
If you go this route, stay under the radar and don't hip the IT guys to what you're doing. Unless they're particularly eagle-eyed they probably won't notice what you're up to. You among thousands of users. They don't have the time. Don't ask for support from them. Figure it out on your own. Get into the VPN, figure out the IP address of your email server and keep your notes id handy for when the prompt asks. Expect it to take a little fiddling and do lots of backups.
Standard reactions here by ClosedSource · 2009-10-26 16:26 · Score: 0, Offtopic

MS could release all of the Windows 7 source under the GPL and Slashdotters would explain why it's no big deal and ask why anyone would want it anyway.
1. Re:Standard reactions here by Hognoxious · 2009-10-29 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Nonsense. Slashdotters like a laugh as much as anyone. Except perhaps my wife, and most of her friends.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Fixing it? by GDgonzo · 2009-10-26 16:38 · Score: 0

Perhaps they are opening up all these technologies so they can be improved by the community and further locking themselves in.
SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by schnablebg · 2009-10-26 16:53 · Score: 1

Running SQL Server (Express or otherwise) on the desktop is a BAD IDEA. Trust me, I used to support an app that did just this. SQL Server is not designed for the desktop environment and, if you can even get it to install, it causes more problems than it solves.
An embedded database, like SQL Server Compact, might be a good idea, though.
1. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by beuges · 2009-10-26 21:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Then either your app quality or your support skills were lacking. Developers routinely run local copies of SQL server on their development machines without having any issues whatsoever. I ran SQL server 2005 for years on my development machine without even noticing it was running. I currently run SQL Server Express 2008 on my development machine and it runs perfectly. I have also installed SQL Server Express 2008 on 1GHz compact pcs with 512mb ram and 4gb of disk space. The only issue with performing the installation on those was freeing up enough space for the installer to unpack itself and run. Installing SQL server is as simple as clicking next a bunch of times.
  A desktop machine/os is so slightly different from a server machine/os that unless you are doing something horribly wrong, there should be no performance/functionality difference between running something like sql server on either of them.
2. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by schnablebg · 2009-10-27 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  SQL Server runs fine, but does not install reliably on many machines because it crashes and burns on machines with slightly out of the ordinary settings. It is a support nightmare and failed for something like 10% of our customers. Plus, the install is SLOW. But the main problems, after it is installed, have to do with the way SQL Server stores data. SQL Server data is a delicate mix of many files and registry settings. Once your DB is installed on C:, it is difficult if not impossible to move that data to D:. This also makes it impossible to do an "XCOPY" backup of your data if you are migrating to another machine or uninstalling the app. You would need to use the export function inside the app because just copying out the SQL Server files (which the customer won't be able to find, anyway--they will be buried in obscurely named directories) won't work when you copy them back in, unless you are a SQL Server expert. And since basic users can't start and stop the SQL Server Services, you'll run into problems if you want to start/stop the DB under Vista and Windows 7. A MS rep once told our team that SQL Server [Express] is like an 18-wheeler, but using it for desktop apps is like driving that 18-wheeler in Manhattan.
3. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  But the main problems, after it is installed, have to do with the way SQL Server stores data. SQL Server data is a delicate mix of many files and registry settings. Once your DB is installed on C:, it is difficult if not impossible to move that data to D:.
  You gotta be kidding. SQL server is an extremely robust ACID-compliant database. MS does get a lot of well-deserved grief for the quality of their software, but SQL server is IMHO the best product they sell.
  To move your database, if your database files are currently located on c:, just detach the database, move the .mdf & .ldf file to a new directory on d:, then attach the database. No need to turn off the database server, interrupt other databases, or stop the services. Easy peasy japanesey. Moving the ENTIRE sql server application is quite a bit of work, but moving application databases is trivial.
  This also makes it impossible to do an "XCOPY" backup of your data if you are migrating to another machine or uninstalling the app.
  Not true. You can xcopy the .mdf & .ldf file, provided that the sql server service has been stopped. You can then attach the .mdf & .ldf file to a different database server. But why not use the built-in native commands? Very simple sql:
  BACKUP DATABASE [database_name]
  TO DISK = 'database_backup_file_name'
  Restoring the database from a backup file is equally easy.
4. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by plague3106 · 2009-10-27 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? Sql server runs fine on a desktop, and Sql Express was DESIGNED to be used in that context. What do you think user instances are for?
5. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by plague3106 · 2009-10-27 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  And since basic users can't start and stop the SQL Server Services,
  Ya, that's your failure. You should have been using a User Instance... no need to stop or start the server, as its running in your processes application space, just like Compact would. Your mdf / ldf should be in the user's profile directory in an appropriate location.
  MS reps are just like anyone else; they may or may not know what they're talking about.
6. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by schnablebg · 2009-10-27 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  I like SQL Server. We are talking about using it as the backend to a consumer desktop app. Would you consider Outlook a good product if that was what required to backup and restore your mailboxes on another machine or after a reinstall? This is what SQL Compact is for and Microsoft now advises against using SQL Express on desktop apps. Installation issues are the main reason, though.
7. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by operagost · 2009-10-27 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  SQL Server data is a delicate mix of many files and registry settings. Once your DB is installed on C:, it is difficult if not impossible to move that data to D:
  
  Detach, physically move db file and its log, reattach.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
8. Re:SQL Server on the desktop considered harmful by hydroponx · 2009-10-28 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  I have 2 SQL Server 2005 Instances, 1 oracle install, 1 websphere install w/ 2 profiles, and 3 jboss deployments installed on my laptop granted all of this isn't running at once, and it's only started when I need it, but I have at least 1 SQL instance running at least most of the time.
  With all of that installed the biggest slow downs I see are Norton/Symantec and the backup software that was recently pushed out....
So who is MS selling the patenttrolling rights to? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 17:44 · Score: 0

The Open Specification Promise is pretty worthless.
Zarafa by Errtu76 · 2009-10-26 18:04 · Score: 1

Companies like Zarafa will benefit from this if they act quickly enough. It's already a valid alternative for Exchange. If they allow you to import .pst mailarchives it'll be so much easier to make the switch. Well, not easier but surely a lot less complains from users.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by saleenS281 · 2009-10-26 18:14 · Score: 2, Informative

You say that as though you think Microsoft is unique. That's the general attitude of most successful businesses. Their shareholders don't really care who they "backstab" if it takes care of the bottom line. It's not like that hasn't gone both ways throughout history.

For instance, while the crowd around here celebrates Dell installing Ubuntu on their laptops... that's Dell backstabbing Microsoft. Of course, MS is always the "bad guy" so presenting them as the victim is frowned upon.

Or maybe Intel refusing to upgrade the graphics on many of their platforms to comply with the "Vista ready" status, just so they could make a couple extra bucks while screwing MS. I know, I know, the horror that someone could try to take an unbiased view of the situation!
Sync!!! by bemymonkey · 2009-10-26 18:40 · Score: 1

Quick, someone write an app that syncs my contacts from Outlook 2007 (or WM6.1/6.5) to Thunderbird... Google's buggy Exchange Activesync implementation is driving me bat shit crazy. :(
Is there a python library for .pst? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 19:42 · Score: 0

Is there a python library for .pst?
A link, anyone?
Entourage by jdc18 · 2009-10-26 20:14 · Score: 1

i wonder if someday they are going to grow some balls and actually make their own(Microsoft) stuff compatible. Because entourage which is the mac outlook sucks. It cant open pst. It is a pain in the ass to migrate mails from outlook to entourage.
how nice of MS, but not really necessary any more by natxo+asenjo · 2009-10-26 20:26 · Score: 1

I have succesfully used libpst (http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst/) to import pst files. I cannot remembeer since when, but longer than one year ago at least.
So this was already possible (and not thanks to them, by the way).

--
Natxo Asenjo
Now all we need is the Visio file format by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 20:44 · Score: 0

Being able to import files into a sensible mail format from a pst on a Linux system will be great, if some programmer/programming team cares to scratch that particular itch.
While Hell is freezing over, I'd also like Microsoft to open up the Visio file format. Then if a decent FLOSS drawing package appears, I can finally stop using Windows.
Then again, if MS use open formats, an incentive for me to move off them goes away - I can then decide which OS suits me: Windows, Linux, MacOS, Solaris, one of the BSDs - and WIndows will get a look in. As long as I'm locked in, I will be looking for ways to leave. If you leave the door open, I may just stay if it is a nice environment.
Please dear god someone now save me by herojig · 2009-10-26 21:14 · Score: 1

Please dear god someone now save me Entourage hell and rewrite something that works...

--
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by Rennt · 2009-10-26 21:19 · Score: 1

Or maybe Intel refusing to upgrade the graphics on many of their platforms to comply with the "Vista ready" status, just so they could make a couple extra bucks while screwing MS.
I was in the middle of preparing this huge response with background, citations, the lot. But then it dawned on me that you are a crazy person. Good luck with that.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 22:30 · Score: 0

I know, I know, the horror that someone could try to take an unbiased view of the situation!
You are not even remotely unbiased. Free clue: M$ marketing is not an unbiased source and is far more biased than many other marketing organizations. Try exposing yourself to alternative viewpoints for a change.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by stbill79 · 2009-10-26 22:46 · Score: 1

This would make perfect sense if each product team at Microsoft had complete freedom to design their application without consideration for how their app must further the goal of absolute lock-in of the user to the Windows OS and the rest of Office - the true cash cows.
But obviously this is not the case. Otherwise, you'd see things like Asp.Net run well on a Apache stack (without extra mods), a version of SQL Server native to Linux, XBoxes that share media via a standard network interface, Zunes that sync using standard USB mass storage, MSN Messenger for Macs, etc etc.
The only use for this is... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-26 23:10 · Score: 0

The only use for this is to get the stuff OUT of pst format.
It's a completely pants format.
1. Re:The only use for this is... by petermgreen · 2009-10-26 23:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  one big use I can see is a PST rebuilder, MS tells you to copy anything you want to keep out after repairing a corrupt PST with scanpst but i've found out the hard way that sometimes outlook can read a mail in a PST but when it tries to copy it to another PST it will fail.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
If they want interoperability... by jonadab · 2009-10-26 23:16 · Score: 1

Maybe next they should fix Outlook to send attachments in the standard way, rather than embedding them in .tnef files.

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Cynical ? by Zoxed · 2009-10-26 23:38 · Score: 1

Mod me down for being cynically but: give MS's history, the fact that no release date is given and that presumably they just have to edit/issue an already internally documented format then it just sounds like hot air aimed at naive users and EU legislators.
Re:I can't help but wonder what their motives are. by dns_server · 2009-10-27 01:20 · Score: 1

Or all this has been possible for quite some.
Evolution has been able to load pst files 6 months ago, as well as mapi support with the openchange plugin.
All this really means to us users is they are probably not going to sue us over it.
celebrate by pnutjam · 2009-10-27 01:59 · Score: 1

excuse me while I do some cartwheels down the hall...

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:PST format a bad design idea from the start by GrantRobertson · 2009-10-27 02:06 · Score: 1

There is nothing to prevent your custom apps from spreading that data over multiple different .PST files and then displaying it as if it were one database.
I have been using Outlook for over a decade. I synchronize the data between a desktop and a laptop as well as hotsync it to a Palm Pilot (Sony Clie NR70v). I have only had one or two times when the database got corrupted. I just restored from the copy that was on my laptop and was on my way.
I think this is a great thing as I have no intention of giving up Outlook any time soon but I am about to give up on the Palm OS platform and move on to Android. Unless Chapura comes out with an Android version of Keysuite, I will likely have to create my own apps for Android and was concerned about figuring out the Outlook .PST format. Now I can get it straight from the horse's mouth. Sure, I know MS isn't always completely forthcoming. Duh. But it is better than relying on hacking my way through from scratch.
Offtopic? by ClosedSource · 2009-10-27 03:41 · Score: 1

You wish.
Better still by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-27 05:19 · Score: 0

Please note that I'm completely serious.
Open your email program. Select all mails, except the most recent 10 messages. Now press delete. Really, go ahead. It's ok, really. I'm still painfully serious!
Now, you will go through some withdrawal symptoms. Don't worry, it will turn to a peaceful state of mental tranquility.
Do this every Monday morning, first thing when you come into the office.
I've been doing this since January 1st, 2005. Never missed a single thing that was really important. It's just email.
Whose Corner Cases? by mattpalmer1086 · 2009-10-27 07:08 · Score: 1

As you rightly point out, if you're already working in a live Windows / Outlook / Exchange environment, then having the PST format spec is largely irrelevant.
However, There are huge amounts of government data locked up in PST files. I work in digital preservation - our use case is to profile the information contained in these files, both to determine if their contents should be preserved for accountability and historic interest reasons, and to be able to process their contents on a server and apply preservation policies to them.
So roll on the PST spec - it will be a major help in unlocking government data, assuring accountability, and preserving what it for the ages. When so much vital information is locked up in an undocumented format, there are always lots of use cases that will be important to a significant group of people. They may be corner cases to you, but they will be vitally important to others.
Ask Leopard (10.5+) users by Ilgaz · 2009-10-27 20:50 · Score: 1

People using Entourage (Outlook (lite) for Mac) had to live that surprise when their OS X Leopard with Time Machine went insane with 1-2 GB backups hourly. Some didn't figure what is going on until TM started to delete old backups for space. MS, as usual, didn't even bother tell the people using "enemy OS". I think they still have to exclude their mails while backing up and use a different application for backing up their mails.
Apple went from mbox (flat) to single mail files almost instantly when they had Spotlight enabled since Spotlight is not suitable for single mailbox. Opera guys did the same in recent versions for safety, indexing and backup reasons. It is only MS Entourage which is amazingly expensive doesn't have that choice.