Seems this turned into a b-ch fest rather than answering your original question...;-) While I agree this is a ridiculous characteristic in the design and one that opens us up for DoS attacks (eventually), it is what it is and we need to figure out how to work around it. You have a few options; increase the limit, move users off, or find out what is causing it and stop it.
My first suggestion is to take inventory of where your databases are as far as named props are concerned, you need to expose some IS counters to see this info, but it'll give you an understanding on whether it's widespread or concentrated on a set of databases (or users). Next start monitoring your event logs. An event ID is logged by default each time a new named prop is added (event id 9873 I believe) and when the quota's been reached (9666, 7, 8, 9). This can help you track down the culprit. Note, the initial limit reached is the default quota...not the limit. My understanding is that when the hard limit (32k) is reached the database will dismount and you will have to restore from backup and move users off. In my situation I found that less than a dozen users were creating hundreds of named props daily for weeks. This was the result of an open source imap client called offlineIMAP. This client is used to bidirectionally synch messages via IMAP. It does this by creating a unique X-header for EVERY message that comes in, as opposed to a single X-header with a specific value. After finding this out I reached out to the users, and being the ridiculously intelligent (and curious) crew they are they crafted a patch for offlineIMAP (http://software.complete.org/software/issues/show/114). Hope this helps. -alex On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 5:27 AM, McCready, Robert <rob.mccrea...@dplinc.com>wrote: > I agree about it getting worse as it gets betterĸĸ I was shocked by the > whole powershell thingĸĸ I know some people love it, but I think it > stinks.ĸ Hello 1960'ĸĸÂ 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 failedĸĸ I then had to type out a 212 character PowerShell command to > get it to work.ĸ Some "Improvement" over 2003ĸĸ HA! > > > Can somebody dumb this Named Property thing down for me in 200ĸĸÂ I'm not > understanding here.ĸ > > > *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.ĸĸ―ĸĸ― 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?ĸĸ―ĸĸ― Would you recommend Fix number 1 or 2ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ― Enough > questions? > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> Robert > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > > ~ ĸĸ―ĸĸ― ĸĸ―ĸĸ― http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja > ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―~ > > > > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > > ~ ĸĸ―ĸĸ― ĸĸ―ĸĸ― http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja > ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―ĸĸ―~ > > > > > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > > ĸĸ ĸĸÂĸĸ ĸĸÂĸĸ ĸĸÂĸĸ ĸĸÂ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/NinĸĸÂĸĸ ĸĸÂĸĸ ĸĸÂĸĸ > ĸĸÂĸĸ ĸĸÂĸĸ ĸ > ~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
