It's typical of Microsoft, putting in an arbitrary limit in a world where anyone can create any number of X- headers. It's one of those unintended consequences of treating email as a database, I guess. *sigh* Cheers, Phil -- Phil Randal | Networks Engineer Herefordshire Council | Deputy Chief Executive's Office | I.C.T. Services Division Thorn Office Centre, Rotherwas, Hereford, HR2 6JT Tel: 01432 260160 email: pran...@herefordshire.gov.uk
Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it. ________________________________ From: McCready, Robert [mailto:rob.mccrea...@dplinc.com] Sent: 19 March 2009 12:27 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Named Property Limit I agree about it getting worse as it gets better I was shocked by the whole powershell thing I know some people love it, but I think it stinks. Hello 1960' I had to move a mailbox in the lab the other day from Exchange 2007 back to Exchange 2003 to do an old restore, and the GUI move failed I then had to type out a 212 character PowerShell command to get it to work. Some "Improvement" over 2003 HA! Can somebody dumb this Named Property thing down for me in 200 I'm not understanding here. What is the Named Property list actually used for? What are the consequences for not being able to add to it? It looks like we hit our 16,000 limit over 3 months ago, but nobody has reported any problems sending or receiving email??? -----Original Message----- From: Steve Moffat [mailto:st...@optimum.bm] On Behalf Of Exchange (Sunbelt) Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 5:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Named Property Limit Is it just me, or is Exchange getting worse as it gets better..;) S -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 6:31 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Named Property Limit I don't have an answer for you on that. I suppose a mail gateway between your Exchange box and the Internet could do some whitelisting, and discard any unrecognized headers, but I wouldn't have a good guess as to how to go about it. Kurt On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 13:43, McCready, Robert <rob.mccrea...@dplinc.com> wrote: > Is there a way to limit these X-headers, or find out what is causing so many? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 4:30 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Named Property Limit > > One of the things that seems to contribute are X- headers on inbound > mail - each new X-header is a new named property. > > Want to DoS someone? Send them emails with new X-headers - lots of > different ones. > > Spam seems to accumulate them, for one. > > Just looking at your message from the list, I see 4 different X-headers: > > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > x-ems-proccessed: jxfyzdhlyVyYF5VF4W3Asg== > x-ems-stamp: sLcJ9ri/feAlRgbRlwdyOA== > > > Kurt > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 13:20, McCready, Robert > <rob.mccrea...@dplinc.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure I understand this named property quota thing or how we reached >> our limit... >> >> >> >> (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb851492.aspx) >> >> >> >> but my question is, how big of a deal is it really? We apparently reached >> our 16,000 limit back in December, yet nobody has had any trouble >> sending/receiving email. >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: McCready, Robert [mailto:rob.mccrea...@dplinc.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:41 PM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Event 9667 Quota Limit on Named Property >> >> >> >> We are running Exchange 2007 SP1. Apparently, we have reached our "named >> property" quota (which I do not completely understand) on one of our storage >> groups. >> >> >> >> Event ID: 9667 >> >> Source: MSExchangeIS >> >> Compute>> >> Failed to create a new named property for database "SGx\MDBx" because the >> number of named properties reached the quota limit (9274 User attempting >> to create the named property: "Hub Transport Server" Named property GUID: >> xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxx Named property name/id: "pipe-summary" >> >> >> >> All the fixes I read say to either.. >> >> >> >> Modify the registry and dismount/remount the database. >> Create a new Storage Group and move all the mailboxes there. >> >> >> >> We've only been running Exchange 2007 for about 18 months>> occurrence (reaching the quota limit)? Is there any way to find out if >> there's a particular violator that may have caused us to reach this >> quota? Would you recommend Fix number 1 or 2 Enough questions? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Nin ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
