Why is an IMAP Inbox Only Displaying 10,000 Items When There are Many More Emails on the Server?

Anonymous

I have an IMAP email account that is hosted by AOL Mail, which I download into Outlook 365. The AOL Account has emails going as far back as 2015, and until recently all of those emails were visible (and searchable) through Outlook. About 2 weeks ago, I noticed that I could no longer search for emails going back farther than 6 months ago. Those emails are still on the AOL server; I can see them if I use AOL's webmail interface (which is pretty mediocre). But they are no longer downloading into my IMAP inbox. Indeed, at the bottom of the inbox it now says I have 10,000 items.

                                     [!\[\](https://learn-attachment.microsoft.com/api/attachments/40c12e9d-b5a2-4a30-8bc4-4503de01cbbc?platform=QnA

That's the maximum. If I delete say 100 emails, another 100 emails will download from the AOL server but the downloading will stop when I hit 10,000. (When new emails download from the account, older emails are deleted so I'm just about always at 10,000 items). The full set of emails remains on the AOL server.
In my IMAP Account Settings for this email account, I have the "Keep Mail offline" setting pushed all the way to the right at "All".
[!\\ I can't find any setting in Outlook that limits the number of emails. Nor does there appear to be any setting in the AOL account that limits 3rd party IMAP mailboxes to only 10,000 items (at least not one that I can find). New emails are downloading and syncing with the AOL server, so my connection settings appear to be correct.
Is there some kind of Registry setting that is limiting the number of items that will load into this email inbox? I used to have access to all of the emails that were on the AOL server. Is there any way to get that back? One last note. I deleted the AOL account from Inbox, rebooted and then reinstalled the AOL account. It still only downloaded 10,000 items in the IMAP inbox. Also I'm using the most recent version of Outlook 365.
Thanks for any help anyone can provide.](https://learn-attachment.microsoft.com/api/attachments/e4efa42d-54c3-4fa7-b54a-ae7d93efb421?platform=QnA)](https://learn-attachment.microsoft.com/api/attachments/40c12e9d-b5a2-4a30-8bc4-4503de01cbbc?platform=QnA)

Locked Question. This question was migrated from the Microsoft Support Community. You can vote on whether it's helpful, but you can't add comments or replies or follow the question.

0 comments

315 answers

Anonymous

2022-06-09T16:58:23+00:00

If they do that (send the most recent 10,000 and only send more if the client asks for the next 10,000), and advise of that BUT still require a change on the client, then anyone using a client not currently being supported/maintained will be left out. If I hadn't checked just so I could post here the confirmation, I would have believed my Office 2016 was no longer getting updates. For sure, Office 2013 or 2010 won't get a fix to keep asking until they get the last chunk.
Was this answer helpful?

1 person found this answer helpful.

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2022-06-09T16:44:34+00:00

Thank you for you reply Richard.

The truth is I don't really know how to launch a Twitter campaign, I only joined Twitter a few weeks ago to express my support and admiration for what Elon Musk had said he was going to do. Otherwise I have no Twitter skills or experience. I slapped my conversation with Yahoo customer care there and pasted a few of their pathetic responses. No idea how to get others to participate
Was this answer helpful?

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2022-06-09T16:24:37+00:00

Just had this happen with me last night had email back to 2017 when Verizon got rid of their own mail servers and had everyone switch to AOL. Rebooted the computer and now had 10k items in the inbox with mail going back to December 8 2021,

Office 365 outlook 2016 version 2205 build 15225.20204
Was this answer helpful?

1 person found this answer helpful.

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2022-06-09T14:53:15+00:00

That answer from AOL does not ring true to me. IMAP Servers is what controls the msg download process, so my 40+ years experience in s/w development tells me the server determines how many messages are downloaded. Likely scenario to me they implemented some logic downloading 10000 and then waiting for the client to say give me next 10000 chunk. But the clients have not been made aware of this dialog and do nothing. Such features would only work if both sides participate. Looks like Yahoo/AOL has implemented this change without coordinating with all the clients to do the matching change. This is a NoNo in s/w development
Was this answer helpful?

3 people found this answer helpful.

0 comments No comments
Anonymous

2022-06-09T14:47:09+00:00

Not only are they claiming that Apple and Microsoft decided that, and at the same time, but in my case two different versions of outlook on two different versions of windows made that decision. One version of outlook hadn't been updated for some time, the other was updated May 13th but just made that change this week; that one is on WIndows 7 that didn't and doesn't do upgrades anymore. So Microsoft implemented that change in a program I have installed on my PC without updating it.

One rep told me to take it to a local support/repair shop (pay for service and there's nothing they can do or even find). The other told me to contact Microsoft (I guess to ask if they implemented a secret change without updating the program... or maybe that they made a change to AOL's server (oh, and Yahoo's too).

Actually, although I think they changed something, it's possible that they're both using the same server platform and unbeknownst to them there was a change made that did this. But it's also not unlikely that THEY made the change, but didn't consider it worth mentioning to their support people. Trust me, that happens all too often. So they may be correct to the best of their knowledge. BUT a twitter campaign might force them to look into it.
Was this answer helpful?

4 people found this answer helpful.

0 comments No comments