I still don't know the root cause of the issue, but it was resolved by opening Outlook with the owner's account and simply accessing a voicemail. Thanks again for the Cisco Forum tip.
- Sean On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Sean Martin <seanmarti...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. I created an account and posted my question on > the Cisco forum. > > - Sean > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Maglinger, Paul <pmaglin...@scvl.com>wrote: > >> The Cisco forum for Unity is monitored by one of the original >> developers, and he usually responds fairly quickly. He could probably give >> you the answers you need. >> >> >> >> *From:* Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] >> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2009 1:00 PM >> >> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> *Subject:* RE: Cisco Unity Upgrade - Version 4 to Version 7 >> >> >> >> Have not experienced this particular problem, but it does sound like the >> Unity service account has some kind of permission issue on those mailboxes. >> What I have found in looking at somewhat similar issues is that it can be >> extremely difficult to adequately compare permissions between a working >> mailbox and a non-working one and the easiest solution is what they >> suggest--delete and re-create. I can understand why you wouldn't want to do >> that if there are a lot, though. >> >> >> >> The only thing that I have ever run across that was like that and was >> resolvable had to do with the user account in question having been a member >> of a "special" group in the past. For example, if you have ever been in >> "Domain Admins" or "Print Operators" on the DC (to name a couple), you get >> flagged in AD and your permissions get reset at a regular interval. If >> these are generic department accounts, though, I would not expect that to be >> your problem. If you would like more specific info on that, let me know and >> I will dig out my notes. >> >> >> >> Good luck! >> >> Bill Mayo >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2009 1:48 PM >> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Cisco Unity Upgrade - Version 4 to Version 7 >> >> Good morning (or afternoon) everyone, >> >> >> >> Our Network Services team recently upgraded Cisco Unity from version 4 to >> version 7. For all intensive purposes, the upgrade went fairly well. There >> is one nagging issue that we have a workaround for, but I'm hoping some of >> you may have experienced a similar situation and were able to come up with >> a better solution. >> >> >> >> Environment: >> >> Windows 2003 AD >> >> Exchange 2003 SP2 - 2 mailbox servers, one front-end server >> >> Cisco Unuity 7 >> >> >> >> Individual Unity subscribers are able to access their own voicemail, via >> Outlook Viewmail 7.02 and via the phones themselves without issue. However, >> several branch offices use a departmental unity account which is tied into a >> departmental mailbox. Users in these office can play the voicemail via >> Outlook just fine, but when they dial the extension to check the message for >> that departmental account, they hear the response "your message cannot be >> accessed at this time". >> >> >> >> Our Network Services team has run the Unity permissions wizard several >> times to verify that everything is setup correctly. The various service >> accounts did not change from the previous version. Cisco support finally >> suggested that the offending mailboxes be deleted and a new mailbox be >> created. This seems to resolve the issue. However, we'd rather not have to >> follow through with this solution considering the number of mailboxes that >> are affected. >> >> >> >> I've tried deleting the mailbox and simply re-associating with the >> original account. I've also tried moving the mailbox between storage groups >> and between mailbox servers. Using ADSIEdit, I've tracked down the >> permissions applied to the Information Stores and it all appears to be setup >> correctly. >> >> >> >> Has anyone experienced anything similar? More importantly, were you able >> to identify an easier solution? >> >> >> >> - Sean >> > >
