oh, you didn't mention you were archiving your exchange mailbox. That does
not use a pst (so there is not a 121 meg pst to compare it with) and yes,
the messages are much larger because of how Exchange stores messages and
attachments. An exchange mailbox store is always the smallest format.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"win_cpp" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,

Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
did you try compacting the archive pst?


Yes I did try compacting the archive PSTs. No effect of the operation.

I suspect that, method in which the mails are written to the
destination PST, on being fetched from the Exchange Server is different
from the method the same mails are archive PST.

Something related to how Outlook 2003 handles the default delivery PST
and the secondary PSTs configured in the outlook profile.

This is just a thought ...

Regards,
Mandar
_______________________________
Mandar D. Sahasrabuddhe
Pune
http://mandards.livejournal.com/
http://360.yahoo.com/mandards