I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences.
-----Original Message----- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the "M: Drive", don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the "M: Drive" (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. <Cheers:Siegfried runat="server" /> Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always > encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox > anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by > people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty > much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just > stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly > outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on > those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned > up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have > replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication > caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have > owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 > to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, > but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes > an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in > PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, > now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even > though you know it's in there. > > We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create > mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the > ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a > waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is > a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years > we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the > server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the > permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, > we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not > more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do > with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a > clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When > the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the > only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. > When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that > in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without > replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that > be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, > which may or may not work correctly. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they > "fixed" it in E2K. > > Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders > and Note (email message) type public folders I don't > understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice > if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is > pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. > > Since anything "collaborative" about public folders seems > headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much > harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward. > > > ======================================== > ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm > ======================================== > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > Question then.... Why did they change the functionality? > It worked > in 5.5 > > > > > > > > Joshua Morgan > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of > http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm) your co-worker > found is designed for the Exchange Event Service which is > only provided in Exchange 2000/2003 for backwards > compatibility and I would not recommend using it with > Exchange 2000/2003 due to being not reliable. 2. The issue > you are facing not being able to reply to public folder > messages will neither be fixed with KB817809 nor the script > you mentioned or the one Andy Webb pointed you to. This is a > limitation of Outlook Web Access 2000. > > <Cheers:Siegfried runat="server" /> > > Development Lead, > > CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration > Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > > > > Windows 2000 SP3 > > Exchange 2000 SP3 > > > > Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. > > http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 > > > > Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it > because we > > are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder > when it is > > > accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds > > until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting > issues with > > this Script that a coworker of mine found online. > > > http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm > > All help is appreciated, > Joshua > > > > > > > > > Joshua Morgan > Method IQ > Senior Network Engineer > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=& lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
