Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Opening Outlook's PST Format
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."
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.
"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.
What is .pst used for exactly?
The 'PST' or 'Personal STore' file contains the Outlook/Outlook Express Message Mail Box.
It's MS's overly complicated version of a mail spool file.
Outlook Express never used PST files (but it could import them).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Remember OOXML? ... http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/21/1821251
Um, ok, then explain this
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Import_.pst_files
and this
http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst/rn01re01.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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"
That's like saying a blimp is an overly complicated way to cross the street.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Embrace
Extend
Extin... oh wait
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"
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.
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.
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...)
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
"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
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!
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...
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.
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