Follow up: doesn't look like it included in Exchange 2003 RC1. Tried it and it is still IPM.Post...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > > The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with > > regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this > > functionality will be included in the RTM release? > > Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to > see if it is included there and post back here. > > <Cheers:Siegfried runat="server" /> > > Development Lead, > > CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration > Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > > > > I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, > > probably more so than most on the list. > > > > The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with > > regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this > > functionality will be included in the RTM release? > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note > > > > > > > > > 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&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&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&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&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]
