[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: how to read a .msg file



On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:12:25PM -0400, Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:29:25PM -0700, Jeff wrote:
> | Shri Shrikumar, 2002-Aug-06 20:05 +0100:
> | > On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 18:34, Jeff wrote:
> | > > I've got a few .msg files that I need to read, but I can't figure out
> | > > how to read them without moving them to an MS machine.  I'm googling
> | > > around and I haven't found anything yet.  I also found and looked at
> | > > goldedplus, but couldn't seem to make it do what I wanted...it
> | > > probably doesn't do what I'm want though.
> | > > 
> | > > Any suggestions?
> | > > 
> | > 
> | > 
> | > From what I remember, an msg file is just the email source, try opening
> | > it up with less.
> | 
> | That was the first thing I tried and it reads as binary.
> | 
> | $ less testing.msg 
> | "testing.msg" may be a binary file.  See it anyway?
> 
> less will say that for any file containing characters with the eigth
> bit set.  If the MIME headers say so, then that is legal in email.
> 
> | When I answer yes, I see a bunch of highlighted characters like "^@".
> 
> ^@ is the ASCII character NUL (0x0)
> 
> | I went ahead and moved the files to an MS system and read them using
> | Outlook, but I'd like to figure out how to do this under Debian for
> | future occurances.
> 
> Was any part of the file recognizable?  If so then you may have some
> hope in extracting useful data from it.  Otherwise you need to figure
> out what the data format is and either find a decoder or write one
> yourself.
> 
> HTH,
> -D
> 
I'm coming in late on this, so I'm not sure if this suggestion
addresses the original problem:

Load the file onto a Windoze machine which has on it also software for
communicating with a Palm.

Download the outlook stuff onto a Pilot or Visor or whatever. 

Take the Pilot/Visor/? to a Linux/Unix box and upload.

It works for a Mac.


-- 
Paul E Condon           
pecondon@quiknet.com    



Reply to: