Any plans for archive complete folders in Outlook 2010?

[dgoodyear]

As we test and get ready to move to Enterprise Vault 9 SP1 (from version 8 SP4), so that we can deploy Office 2010, I noticed the following in the documentation:

HTTP-Only Outlook Add-In functionality in Outlook 2010

Enterprise Vault Outlook Add-In functionality in Outlook 2010 is always HTTP-Only. There are some differences from the HTTP-Only functionality in Outlook 2003/2007, as follows:

•  You cannot archive complete folders using the Enterprise Vault Store button or Store in Vault command.

Is there any alternative or work-around for this? Or is this just a function of the HTTP-only client?  We have a large number of users that currently set up folder structures in their mailbox for organization, then select the root folder and "store in vault" for items and sub-items. 

[Nick_White]

Right now the Outlook 2010 client will not allow you to carry out this operation. I've pointed this thread out to the person who is working on the enhancements proposal for the client so that he is aware of the need for this functionality to be weighed against the other parts that need to be done.

As a workaround you could create an Outlook add-in using VSTO that sets all items in a folder to the message class IPM.Note.EnterpriseVault.PendingArchive.ArchiveMe via a new option on the right-click context menu for the folder

[mjkqb]

I have just upgraded from 8.05 to 9.0.1.

We are just rolling out Office 2010. We have not yet installed any  Outlook clients except on a few test machines.What client should I be installing, the http-only add -in or the outlook add-in? What are the differences? When should one be used instead of the other?

Thanks

[David_standish]

mjkqb - We had to look for this answer recently too.  This article has the overview for Outlook 2010 support and was helpful.

http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH130537

You don't have access with the HTTP-Only version to a few things (EV under folder properties, select an archive when Store in Vault) but otherwise it has everything else.

One note... we were testing 9.0.1 and had some issues installing on a few boxes.  Support provided a newer version of the add-in for us to use that worked fine - so if you are testing 9.0.1 and have issues, I would contact support.

[Rob_Wilcox1]

A newer version?

Did you previously have the earlier release client, and does the new version in the client log file report as version

06/01/2011 09:38:13.045[4868]: Environment:
06/01/2011 09:38:13.045[4868]:     Enterprise Vault Client 9.0.1.1073.0 (HTTP)

[David_standish]

Looks like I misspoke. 

The one that was failing reported as:

    Environment:

      Enterprise Vault Client 9.0.1.1073.0 (HTTP)

The one we were given that corrected our issue is reporting as:

    Environment:

      Enterprise Vault Client 9.0.1.1038 (HTTP)

Looks like we were given an older one.  The strange part is that it shows in Add/Remove programs as 9.0.5134...

Any insight on why they would have suggested on older version...  Wondering what client we should go with for our deployment...

[Rob_Wilcox1]

The issue of the number being "wrong" in add/remove programs is known about .. it's always been different to the main stream version.  The true version is :-

a) In the client trace

b) On the file version tab of valkyrie.dll

The number in add/remove programs does have a pattern, but it's for our Build Team.. and may be brought inline in a future version (you see things like XP didn't expose this version information as readily as things like Vista/Windows 7).

Back to the issue.

1038 is the 9.0.1 Early Release Client.

I'll stick my neck out and suggest the chances of you getting full support on an issue that you report on that version of the client, now that the full 9.0.1 release is out, is SLIM (at best).

So, in my opinion, you should go back to Support and query this (or PM me the case number, and I'll drop them an email tomorrow to find out more details).

[mjkqb]

OK. Sorry, but I'm still confused. I downloaded the full media for 9.0.1 EV Server a week ago. It has the Outlook-Add-In and the HTTP-Only Outlook-Add-In. Do I have to use the HTTP only version since we are rolling out Office 2010 or does this issue with having to use the HTTP-only with Outlook 2010 only pertain to an earlier version of the 9.0.1 client.

Thanks

[Rob_Wilcox1]

The full media you will have downloaded contains :-

DCOM/Full client, for use with Outlook 2007 and Outlook 2003

HTTP client, for use with Outlook 2010, Outlook 2007 and Outlook 2003

So yes, if you want to use Outlook 2010 as a client, then you have to deploy the HTTP client.  That version though is the 1073.  1038 is an older build, and relates to what we term the 9.0.1 Early Release Client.  That was released in November 2010 (I think) and was for early support for Outlook 2010.

Since then there has obviously been :-

* Quite a few bulds (early release was 1038, 9.0.1 "proper" release was 1073)

* Several client fixes

* Serveral installer fixes

So the one to use is 1073.

If that is giving you issues on some machines, but 1038 doesn't.. then we want to know about those :)

[dgoodyear]

Thanks for the upate.  It will be nice if that functionality returns.  I've never created an outlook add-in.  We may have to make do for now.

[dgoodyear]

Right now the Outlook 2010 client will not allow you to carry out this operation. I've pointed this thread out to the person who is working on the enhancements proposal for the client so that he is aware of the need for this functionality to be weighed against the other parts that need to be done.

Just curious if there was any more thought given to this operation for outlook 2010 or if it might be considered in a future udpate?

Thanks

[Rob_Wilcox1]

This and all the other functionality which is available in the DCOM client but not in the HTTP/Light client is all being considered for a future version - no timelines yet though.