RE: GAL empty
How can I fix the RUS. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey A. Beckham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 9 iulie 2002 17:29 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: GAL empty Fix the RUS -Original Message- From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:59 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: GAL empty Subject: GAL empty I have Exchange 2000 Server with SP2. In Outlook my Global Address List is empty. All client have the same problem. The client can send and recive e-mail but can not see the GAL. If I try to create another Outlook profile I recive the following message: "The name could not be resolved. The name could not be matched to a name in the address list." I read this articol: Error Message Occurs When Attempting to Resolve Names (Q274668)...no help. Any idea ?? Laurentiu _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Routing
Lets see if anyone can answer this one today ... I'll try and put as much info as possible this time Site 1 : Exchange 5.5 SP4 NT4 SP6a Site 2 : POP3 Mail system Scenario : Site 2 now owns Site 1 and we have set up various custom recipients to forward mail around. However all the mail leaving Site 1 currently goes out over our BT ISDN connection. How do I make all mail destined for Site 2 use the fixed line we have in place between the 2 sites and not go over the ISDN connection. Looking around in Exchange admin I have routing tab on the IMS set for all messages sent to Site1.com route to inbound. Is it just a case of adding a routing entry here for Site2.com routing to Site2. If so how do i address site2 (DNS,IP etc ) Pls help as I need this sorted ASAP. Regards Darren Coolchain LtdCoolchain Ltd London Road Henley Road Teynham Paddock Wood Kent Kent ME9 9PR TN12 6DN Tel: 01795 523200Tel: 01892 831400 Fax: 01795 523241Fax: 01892 831451 All business is conducted in accordance with the company's terms and conditions, a copy of which is available on request. For the avoidance of doubt, all orders initiated by ourselves must be signed by an authorised signatory of this company. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA and IIS Security
1.The lockdown tool can't lock down the *.htr files that keeps the most important thing (username & password). Lockdown tool can lock down the whole IIS lope holes.(If I do this, user cant log in) If I use lockdown tool to unblocked the *.htr files, I've tried the url scan, there are lope holes that gave hacker chance to hack in. Any suggestion? Thanks Rgds Fioon -Original Message- From: Byron Kennedy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 5:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA and IIS Security 1. What about using the iis lockdown tool and url scan? Check technet for how to get this to work nicely w/ owa. 2. yeah, but you'll still need to allow an rpc/mapi session between owa and the mailbox server(s), so you'll need to have the dmz configured for the necessary ports. So the idea here is that now a hack will have to compromise the web with http/s (because that's all that's open on the public side of the firewall), gain root, then discover and compromise the mailbox servers using the limited number of ports available between them and the then compromised owa host (dmz). Or, alternatively you could leave it on the internal lan whereby a hack would need to compromise the web with http/s, gain root, then easily discover everything and have full socket access to your other systems (subject to your application layer security model). I guess there are many ways to look at it. I've done it either way w/ 5.5. Good luck-byron -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA and IIS Security Hi Everyone, Lately I've been noticing a number of attempts to hack one of our Exchange Servers. Our network is behind a Pix firewall and I've closed all unnecessary ports and have it fairly tightly locked down. However I have Port 80, 25 and 110 open for Exchange. My main concern is IIS. I am considering the possibility of disabling IIS and OWA on the Exchange server to minimize attacks. I have all the latest NT4 security patches (that I know of) but the hackers are still attempting to do mischief. There are two things I'd like to know: - 1. Is there a means of making IIS bullet proof with a patch or 3rd party tool? 2. Is it possible to install the OWA component on a server that is running IIS but not Exchange? The reason I ask this is because we have a web server that's running IIS. I thought it may reduce the risk of attack if I remove IIS from the Exchange server and use our web server for OWA? I know this is probably a dumb question but I thought I'd ask it anyway. I've checked out the FAQ but couldn't find anything on this particular scenario. The Exchange server in question is running Exchange 5.5 and Nt4 (SP6). The web server is running W2K (SP2). I'd greatly appreciate feedback re this. Regards Tony Tony McCarthy Systems Engineer OSI Software Ltd Auckland New Zealand Ph:64 09 522 5909 Fax:64 09 522 5901 Mob: 021 703035 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
That's nice if I tried that 4 Gig x 56K = long time (coupla months) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 10 July 2002 2:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Could you email that to my hotmail account? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Miller Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet I just downloaded a 4 gig ISO image this morning? There is no limit. --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: From nirvana to hell in one upgrade - the tail of direct book ing in Outlook 2k+
Had a lot of problems getting AutoAccept from ExchangeCode.com to work with E2K and found the problem (with some help from this list) was with permissions. Had to give the eventconfig send as and receive as permissions on the resource mailboxes to make it work. -Original Message- From: Moore, David K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 20 June 2002 5:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: From nirvana to hell in one upgrade - the tail of direct booking in Outlook 2k+ Importance: High Here's the story - Running Exchange 5.5 and users booking appointments using the AutoAccept script from ExchangeCode.com - and my life is great (except for those darn reoccurring meetings from time to time). Now we make the big move to E2K and since the autoaccecpt script "doesn't" (some reports say it does, some it doesn't - my testing says it doesn't) work on E2K... so I need to come up with a new method. The two methods are using the really old method of leaving an Outlook97 machine logged in with all the resource accounts setup to delegate their appointments to the one dedicated Outlook97 account -or- use the new fangled Outlook 2000/2002 direct booking feature (Direct Booking of Resource Without a Delegate Acct. [Q196534]) where in the client directly books their own meetings using Outlook. Ok, I test it (the new direct book method) and all seems ok. But... when I roll it out into production I have random users (dozens out of 4,000 users) that can not book onto a room because Outlook first declines the meeting because it says it is "busy" and then follows that up with an error of "Unable to save Free/Busy". So, in trouble shooting I have narrowed it down to the client by: * Happens even if the user logs into another machine with their account (without roaming profiles) * Deleting the free/busy file of the calendar (using the GW-Client) and then re-setting it up fixes it from time to time * Granting Owner rights also "sometimes" fixes the problem but not always Is there anyone out there that is using the new OL2000+ direct booking method and has it working correctly? Is there some way to get the exchangecode.com script working on E2K? david moore Chevron Phillips Chemical Messaging Group _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Important Message: [This transmission or any part of it is intended solely for the named addressee. It is confidential. The copying or distribution of this transmission or any information it contains, by anyone other than the addressee, is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please let us know by telephone 61 7 3860 2111 or by reply email to the sender. If you are not the named addressee, you must destroy the original transmission and its contents. You may not rely on electronically transmitted material unless the transmission is subsequently confirmed by fax or letter. Material transmitted to you should also be checked by reference to a hard copy of that material printed directly from our word processing system.] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
And the NDR is even bigger :P -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com -- - Original Message - From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 3:31 AM Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet > The sad thing was that after @Home rejected it, it sent the whole thing back > in the NDR. > > -Original Message- > From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:07 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet > > > That's nothing, I've seen users zip up their HDD and try to email that home > for a backup! > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet > > > There is no set limit. > Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL > dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I > have my IMS set at 15MB > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet > > > Hi All > This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments > that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest > file size that can be attached? > > Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA > Technical Support Manager > OfficePCs > 10 Cape Street > Dickson > Phone : 62579111 > Fax: 62579004 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
Could you email that to my hotmail account? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Miller Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet I just downloaded a 4 gig ISO image this morning? There is no limit. --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
The guy came so close to getting canned I cant even measure it. -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hahahahaha..!! --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet The sad thing was that after @Home rejected it, it sent the whole thing back in the NDR. -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet That's nothing, I've seen users zip up their HDD and try to email that home for a backup! -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet There is no set limit. Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I have my IMS set at 15MB -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
Hahahahaha..!! --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet The sad thing was that after @Home rejected it, it sent the whole thing back in the NDR. -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet That's nothing, I've seen users zip up their HDD and try to email that home for a backup! -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet There is no set limit. Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I have my IMS set at 15MB -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
I just downloaded a 4 gig ISO image this morning? There is no limit. --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
The sad thing was that after @Home rejected it, it sent the whole thing back in the NDR. -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet That's nothing, I've seen users zip up their HDD and try to email that home for a backup! -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet There is no set limit. Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I have my IMS set at 15MB -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
That's nothing, I've seen users zip up their HDD and try to email that home for a backup! -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet There is no set limit. Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I have my IMS set at 15MB -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
I've mine set at 10mb john -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet There is no set limit. Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I have my IMS set at 15MB -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
There is no set limit. Exchange by default has none. I once had a guy try to email a 500MB SQL dump. Most ISP's have approx a 3-5 MB limit. I think Hotmail has 1 MB. I have my IMS set at 15MB -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Size of mail being transferred across the internet
There's a limit? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Smith Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Size of mail being transferred across the internet Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Size of mail being transferred across the internet
Hi All This will seem a silly question but what is the default size of attachments that can be transferred across the internet and also what is the largest file size that can be attached? Roger Smith MCSE, MCP+I, CCNA Technical Support Manager OfficePCs 10 Cape Street Dickson Phone : 62579111 Fax: 62579004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Can't open attachments
Prolonged exposure to Groupshield alters one's perception of reliability. -Peter -Original Message- From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 15:51 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Can't open attachments Groupshield is generally reasonably reliable? Have they threatened you? If you testify against them we can provide you with generally reasonably reliable protection. -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Can't open attachments The attachment does enter the Exchange system but the problem turned out to be Groupshield. Groupshield had gone belly up and seemed to be regarding every attachment as a potential virus so wouldn't open them. The confusing part was that there was no useful error message other than something like: - "Outlook was unable to open attachment". I'm not a great fan of Groupshield however it's generally reasonably reliable. I ran a repair on it which seems to have fixed the problem. Regards Tony Are you sure the attachment enters the Exchange system? -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 02:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Can't open attachments Hi Everyone, I have a problem with a user (using Outlook 2000) who can't open attachments. When she opens new e-mails there is no attachment icon displayed even though the message contains an attachment. She can open e-mail that was sent to her yesterday but not today's. This isn't an Outlook blocking .exe file type issue. It seems to be server side problem because she has the same trouble regardless of the PC she uses. The Exchange server is running W2K (SP2) and Exchange 5.5 (SP4). No other users are affected. There are no limits placed on her mailboxe. Several weeks ago I migrated her mailbox from an old mail server to the current one. I don't know if this is relevant though because she's bee fine until now. Any ideas? Regards Tony _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Confidentiality Notice The content of this e-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not such a person, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that reading it, copying it, or in any way disseminating its content to any other person, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail immediately. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB - A Public Company (publ) - is incorporated in Stockholm Sweden with limited liability and is regulated by The Financial Services Authority for the conduct of designated investment business in the United Kingdom. It is registered in England and Wales under Number BR000979. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Can't open attachments
Groupshield is generally reasonably reliable? Have they threatened you? If you testify against them we can provide you with generally reasonably reliable protection. -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Can't open attachments The attachment does enter the Exchange system but the problem turned out to be Groupshield. Groupshield had gone belly up and seemed to be regarding every attachment as a potential virus so wouldn't open them. The confusing part was that there was no useful error message other than something like: - "Outlook was unable to open attachment". I'm not a great fan of Groupshield however it's generally reasonably reliable. I ran a repair on it which seems to have fixed the problem. Regards Tony Are you sure the attachment enters the Exchange system? -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 02:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Can't open attachments Hi Everyone, I have a problem with a user (using Outlook 2000) who can't open attachments. When she opens new e-mails there is no attachment icon displayed even though the message contains an attachment. She can open e-mail that was sent to her yesterday but not today's. This isn't an Outlook blocking .exe file type issue. It seems to be server side problem because she has the same trouble regardless of the PC she uses. The Exchange server is running W2K (SP2) and Exchange 5.5 (SP4). No other users are affected. There are no limits placed on her mailboxe. Several weeks ago I migrated her mailbox from an old mail server to the current one. I don't know if this is relevant though because she's bee fine until now. Any ideas? Regards Tony _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Confidentiality Notice The content of this e-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not such a person, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that reading it, copying it, or in any way disseminating its content to any other person, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail immediately. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB - A Public Company (publ) - is incorporated in Stockholm Sweden with limited liability and is regulated by The Financial Services Authority for the conduct of designated investment business in the United Kingdom. It is registered in England and Wales under Number BR000979. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Can't open attachments
The attachment does enter the Exchange system but the problem turned out to be Groupshield. Groupshield had gone belly up and seemed to be regarding every attachment as a potential virus so wouldn't open them. The confusing part was that there was no useful error message other than something like: - "Outlook was unable to open attachment". I'm not a great fan of Groupshield however it's generally reasonably reliable. I ran a repair on it which seems to have fixed the problem. Regards Tony Are you sure the attachment enters the Exchange system? -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 02:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Can't open attachments Hi Everyone, I have a problem with a user (using Outlook 2000) who can't open attachments. When she opens new e-mails there is no attachment icon displayed even though the message contains an attachment. She can open e-mail that was sent to her yesterday but not today's. This isn't an Outlook blocking .exe file type issue. It seems to be server side problem because she has the same trouble regardless of the PC she uses. The Exchange server is running W2K (SP2) and Exchange 5.5 (SP4). No other users are affected. There are no limits placed on her mailboxe. Several weeks ago I migrated her mailbox from an old mail server to the current one. I don't know if this is relevant though because she's bee fine until now. Any ideas? Regards Tony _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Confidentiality Notice The content of this e-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not such a person, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that reading it, copying it, or in any way disseminating its content to any other person, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail immediately. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB - A Public Company (publ) - is incorporated in Stockholm Sweden with limited liability and is regulated by The Financial Services Authority for the conduct of designated investment business in the United Kingdom. It is registered in England and Wales under Number BR000979. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Simple question
Sweet, that is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Thanks much. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Simple question If your WINS is working properly, all you should have to change is the DNS entry if you don't have dynamic update. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Simple question There is no IMS involved here. It connects to a hub server that has the IMS on it. There are no internal MX records, either. I should have clarified that in my original post. Thanks anyway. Any other thoughts -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Simple question MX records. Geoff... -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Simple question I have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running as a BDC that I would like to change the IP address on. I will be making a similar change to the PDC, also. Other then making the appropriate changes to the X.400 connectors, is there any issues that I may be overlooking here. It sounds almost too simple. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Simple question
If your WINS is working properly, all you should have to change is the DNS entry if you don't have dynamic update. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Simple question There is no IMS involved here. It connects to a hub server that has the IMS on it. There are no internal MX records, either. I should have clarified that in my original post. Thanks anyway. Any other thoughts -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Simple question MX records. Geoff... -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Simple question I have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running as a BDC that I would like to change the IP address on. I will be making a similar change to the PDC, also. Other then making the appropriate changes to the X.400 connectors, is there any issues that I may be overlooking here. It sounds almost too simple. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Simple question
There is no IMS involved here. It connects to a hub server that has the IMS on it. There are no internal MX records, either. I should have clarified that in my original post. Thanks anyway. Any other thoughts -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Simple question MX records. Geoff... -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Simple question I have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running as a BDC that I would like to change the IP address on. I will be making a similar change to the PDC, also. Other then making the appropriate changes to the X.400 connectors, is there any issues that I may be overlooking here. It sounds almost too simple. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Simple question
MX records. Geoff... -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Simple question I have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running as a BDC that I would like to change the IP address on. I will be making a similar change to the PDC, also. Other then making the appropriate changes to the X.400 connectors, is there any issues that I may be overlooking here. It sounds almost too simple. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simple question
I have an Exchange 5.5 SP4 server running as a BDC that I would like to change the IP address on. I will be making a similar change to the PDC, also. Other then making the appropriate changes to the X.400 connectors, is there any issues that I may be overlooking here. It sounds almost too simple. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
System Mailbox E2K
Maybe this is along the line of the M drive. Can someone point me to source that describes the functions and management (if any) of the System Mailbox. I guess it must be a "do not touch" thing based what it says in Q253784. Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
Bombay sapphire anyone? -Original Message- From: Tim Tullis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering Very Good! Martini's @ Milliways after work? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 42 -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 203.199.81.81 > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the > messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. I > would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user > who has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached > below ? > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then > I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop > worms. > > > -Original Message- > > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Message filtering > > > > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the > > messages that was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and > > everyone seems clear. So I'm > > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have > emails > > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each > other > > email. > > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > > Connector to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net > > since those seem to > > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by > myserver.mycompany.com > > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net (Netscape > > Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: . > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
Very Good! Martini's @ Milliways after work? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 42 -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 203.199.81.81 > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the > messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. I > would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user > who has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached > below ? > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then > I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop > worms. > > > -Original Message- > > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Message filtering > > > > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the > > messages that was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and > > everyone seems clear. So I'm > > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have > emails > > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each > other > > email. > > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > > Connector to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net > > since those seem to > > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by > myserver.mycompany.com > > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net (Netscape > > Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: . > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/2002 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folders
No, we are still in Mixed mode. ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Public Folders Are you running Native Mode in Active Directory? -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folders All, I have a question concerning rehoming public folders from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000. I can rehome the folders just fine. The one thing that we have a problem with is that we have distribution lists that were given permissions to certain public folders. Now I'm trying to figure out how I can give that list the same permissions on the E2K server where the rehomed public folder resides. Can this be accomplished and how? setup: 4- 5.5 servers (2 mailbox servers and 2 IMS servers) 2- E2K servers (1 server has ADC installed and mailbox server, 1 mailbox server) All DC's are upgraded to W2K If i've left something out please let me know. TIA, ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] personalmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folders
Are you running Native Mode in Active Directory? -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 2:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folders All, I have a question concerning rehoming public folders from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000. I can rehome the folders just fine. The one thing that we have a problem with is that we have distribution lists that were given permissions to certain public folders. Now I'm trying to figure out how I can give that list the same permissions on the E2K server where the rehomed public folder resides. Can this be accomplished and how? setup: 4- 5.5 servers (2 mailbox servers and 2 IMS servers) 2- E2K servers (1 server has ADC installed and mailbox server, 1 mailbox server) All DC's are upgraded to W2K If i've left something out please let me know. TIA, ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] personalmail _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Folders
All, I have a question concerning rehoming public folders from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000. I can rehome the folders just fine. The one thing that we have a problem with is that we have distribution lists that were given permissions to certain public folders. Now I'm trying to figure out how I can give that list the same permissions on the E2K server where the rehomed public folder resides. Can this be accomplished and how? setup: 4- 5.5 servers (2 mailbox servers and 2 IMS servers) 2- E2K servers (1 server has ADC installed and mailbox server, 1 mailbox server) All DC's are upgraded to W2K If i've left something out please let me know. TIA, ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
That might be the answer, but what is the question -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 19:16 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 42 -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 203.199.81.81 > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the > messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. I > would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user > who has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached > below ? > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then > I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop > worms. > > > -Original Message- > > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Message filtering > > > > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the > > messages that was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and > > everyone seems clear. So I'm > > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have > emails > > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each > other > > email. > > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > > Connector to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net > > since those seem to > > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by > myserver.mycompany.com > > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net (Netscape > > Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: . > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
42 -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering 203.199.81.81 > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the > messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. I > would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user > who has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached > below ? > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then > I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop > worms. > > > -Original Message- > > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Message filtering > > > > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the > > messages that was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and > > everyone seems clear. So I'm > > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have > emails > > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each > other > > email. > > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > > Connector to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net > > since those seem to > > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by > myserver.mycompany.com > > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net (Netscape > > Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: . > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
203.199.81.81 > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:28 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the > messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. > I would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user who > has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached below ? > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Message filtering > > > First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then I'd > implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop worms. > > > -Original Message- > > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Message filtering > > > > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages > > that > > was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So > > I'm > > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have > emails > > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each > other > > email. > > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > > Connector > > to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem > > to > > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by > myserver.mycompany.com > > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net > > (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: . > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K Developer Edition
Developer Edition is the version that comes with Office 2000/XP Developer Version. It also includes SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. Best Regards, JMU Jim Underwood -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:00 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Developer Edition I know there's an SDK for Exchange, but I've never heard of a developer edition of Exchange the MSDN version (for example) is the enterprise version of Exchange. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
Which AV package are you using? Perhaps it can be persuaded to stop the entire message, rather than just the attachment. -Peter -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. I would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user who has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached below ? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop worms. > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Message filtering > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages > that > was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So > I'm > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have emails > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each other > email. > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > Connector > to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem > to > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by myserver.mycompany.com > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net > (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: . _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if there are people in that domain who work closely with your company, how can you possibly get away with blocking the entire domain? -Peter -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Message filtering We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages that was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So I'm guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have emails floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each other email. What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail Connector to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem to be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by myserver.mycompany.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: . _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
I do have anti-virus software and it is trapping and quarantining the messages. But that doesn't stop the spoofed email from coming in. I would like to find out the source of the infection - who is the user who has been infected. Can I tell from the message header attached below ? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message filtering First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop worms. > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Message filtering > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages > that > was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So > I'm > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have emails > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each other > email. > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > Connector > to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem > to > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by myserver.mycompany.com > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net > (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: . _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
First I'd change my DL SMTP addresses to something non-obvious. Then I'd implement an antivirus solution which could be configured to drop worms. > -Original Message- > From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:28 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Message filtering > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages > that > was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So > I'm > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have emails > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each other > email. > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > Connector > to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem > to > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by myserver.mycompany.com > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net > (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: . _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unable to restore mailbox no physical memory available
I don't reboot my Exchange servers ever... nor do I restore individual mailboxes. I'd contact your backup vendor to ask them why their product is failing to work as you believe it should and check out 'never restore' portion of the Exchange FAQ. > -Original Message- > From: Karon Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Unable to restore mailbox no physical memory available > > I've got Exchange 5.5, SP4 on a decent sized server with 1GB of RAM but > the STORE.EXE is taking up so much of the physial memory that we are > unable now to restore a mailbox using Backup Exec. We backup all > mailboxes nightly. > > Total memory 1047968 > The store.exe is using 915,420 > > What can be done in the way of maintenace? Indexing? Other than > rebooting obviously. Also, how often should an Exchange sever on NT 4 be > rebooted? Once a month? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Message filtering
Put it in as @vsnl.net That will chop everything from vsnl.net and any subdomains it might have. Note: One thing I have found that appears to work like a champ is if you want to kill all email from a country you can enter @ru and kill all email from Russia. Make sure that you don't have a real need for receiving email from said country. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: RBHATIA > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2002 11:28 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Message filtering > > > We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages > that > was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So > I'm > guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have emails > floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each other > email. > What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail > Connector > to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem > to > be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. > Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? > > > Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by myserver.mycompany.com > with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) > id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 > Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net > (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 > From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: . > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Cisco Discussion list
www.groupstudy.com Several lists there, and few questions are about certification. (It's also the 5th entry listed on Google when you search on "Cisco discussion lists") -Original Message- From: A. Al [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 7:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Cisco Discussion list H there, Can someone tell me a Cisco Discussion list? Thanks, Al -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: CDOLive: Bulletinboard, cannot open requested folder!! No prob but that's weird. Just tried it on a dev/test machine here and it works. Can you make sure the folder entry ID is correct? And you also replaced logon.inc? The error might also point to a permission problem. Is the particular folder enabled for anonymous access? Can you provide a URL I could try from here? > -Original Message- > From: Nikolaj Friis Larsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 5:08 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: CDOLive: Bulletinboard, cannot open requested folder!! > > Hi again, I still get the same error :( here is my global.inc file: > > ' Change this value if you want to connect to another Exchange > Server/Site/Org that hosts the > ' global address list. > > ' For Exchange 2000 Server use something like that: > Const APP_ENTERPRISE = "TechCorp" > Const APP_SITE = "First Administrative Group" > Const APP_SERVER = "W2KMGEXC1" > > ' For Exchange 5.5 Server use something like that: > ' Const APP_ENTERPRISE = "YourExchangeOrganization" > ' Const APP_SITE = "YourExchangeSite" > ' Const APP_SERVER = "YourExchangeServer" > > Hope your still interested in helping me. > > Regards, > Nikolaj > > > -Original Message- > From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 4. juli 2002 01:13 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: CDOLive: Bulletinboard, cannot open requested folder!! > > > Damn proxy server cache. That's not the file I uploaded :-( Get > http://www.cdolive.net/download/bboardnew.zip to get the updated one. It > has changes in global.inc where you need to specify Exchange 2000 > Org/AG/Server plus changes in logon.inc to use those values. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Nikolaj Friis Larsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 12:49 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: CDOLive: Bulletinboard, cannot open requested folder!! > > > > Hmm still can't get it to work, I get the same error. > > Where did you make a change? My global.inc has the content: > > > > <% > > 'THIS CODE AND INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT 'WARRANTY OF > > ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, 'INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO > > THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES 'OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR A > > PARTICULAR 'PURPOSE > > > > > '--- > > --- > > ' > > ' NAME: Global.inc > > ' > > ' FILE DESCRIPTION: Contains global application settings > > ' > > ' Copyright (c) CdoLive 1999. All rights reserved. > > ' Http://www.cdolive.com > > ' Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ' > > ' Portions: > > ' Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation 1993-1997. All rights reserved. > > ' > > > '--- > > --- > > > > ' Folder ID of the folder which should be displayed > > ' Follow the installation description how to get this folder id for a > > particular folder ' And change it here. Note that the " characters at > > the start and end must be preserved > > const APP_FOLDER_ID = > > > "1A447390AA6611CD9BC800AA002FC45A0300C94BB27963A79842BE6A687BEAF > > AE8970001E0B7" > > > > ' Title of the application > > ' Is used to display a title in the browser title and application > title > > and can be changed > > Const APP_TITLE = "+++ Hot News +++" > > > > ' Backround color of the main application window > > Const APP_BACKROUND_COLOR = "99" > > > > ' Frameborder color of the main application window and the single item > > > window Const APP_FRAMEBORDER_COLOR = "99CCFF" > > > > ' Frameborder shadow color of the main application window and the > single > > item window > > Const APP_FRAMEBORDER_SHADOW = "C0C0C0" > > > > ' This sample display the last 10 entries of a folder, increase this > > number to display more items Const APP_ITEM_COUNT = 10 > > %> > > > > The only thing I changed where APP_Folder:ID > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 3. juli 2002 23:50 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: CDOLive: Bulletinboard, cannot open requested folder!! > > > > > > Okie. Checked into that again. Turned out that the published version > > wasn't up to date (I really need to find some time to put all the new > > and updated stuff). > > > > I've now uploaded a slightly modified vers
Message filtering
We're being hit big time by the KLEZ virus. Here is one of the messages that was sent. I've checked everyone's machines and everyone seems clear. So I'm guessing it's someone who works closely with our company as we have emails floating back and forth between staff who claim they never sent each other email. What if I set up the message filtering option on the Internet Mail Connector to block the domain smtp02.vsnl.net and smtp03.vsnl.net since those seem to be the 2 main sources from where the emails are originating. Also, how do I insert the entry ? Do I enter it as @smtp02.vsnl.net ? Received: from smtp02.vsnl.net ([203.197.12.8]) by myserver.mycompany.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange ) id 31VYJYRC; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 04:14:50 -0400 Received: from Qrvlyi ([203.199.81.81]) by smtp02.vsnl.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GYX8GJ00.Z9D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:49:31 +0530 From: staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: . _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unable to restore mailbox no physical memory available
I've got Exchange 5.5, SP4 on a decent sized server with 1GB of RAM but the STORE.EXE is taking up so much of the physial memory that we are unable now to restore a mailbox using Backup Exec. We backup all mailboxes nightly. Total memory 1047968 The store.exe is using 915,420 What can be done in the way of maintenace? Indexing? Other than rebooting obviously. Also, how often should an Exchange sever on NT 4 be rebooted? Once a month? Thanks, Karon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folders
try Ecora -Original Message- From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 11:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folders Is there a utility that will document the hierarchical structure of Public Folders? Such as a Visio document or word document? TIA! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Folders
Is there a utility that will document the hierarchical structure of Public Folders? Such as a Visio document or word document? TIA! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rolling upgrade with a twist
We've just moved our Exchange 5.5 Cluster on Windows NT 4.0, SP6a from fiber based storage to scsi based storage. I evicted a node and rebuilt it and restored from Backup. This allowed us to keep Exchange running up till the point we werer ready to restore on the new storage. We're ready to add the second node to the new cluster. We're wondering if it's possible to build the second node as a Windows 2000 server and join it to the 4.0 based cluster. It seems like this might be possible based on reading the MS roling upgrade white paper. The idea is to add the 2000 server to the cluster, move Exchange to it and then evict and rebuild the first node with Windows 2000. This way we would avoid doing an OS upgrade, we'd be working with clean installs of 2000 which has always been preferable in my experience. Thanks for any suggestions, or experiences you can share. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
That is not entirely accurate. While it is true that the reply is a different message, the reply also uses SIS in that one copy of the reply is maintained for the sender and all recipients in the same information store database. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hurst, Paul Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas On your comment about Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on your server? 1GB? Not with single instance storage! --- I think you might not quite understand the problem with SIS, it is only good for when the email is being sent in transit because as soon as it arrives and the person replies to it with Outlook, bingo no more SIS for that message. My last place of work and current we get roughly 1.3 ratio. Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everybody agrees you should have one, but no one wants to use yours -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 6:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas Yes I've worked in small companies. And I've sold to small companies. I dare say that I understand the dynamics fairly well. Disk space, tape space, and backup time are all simple issues, present them to the purse strings and let them make the decision. 1GB of saved email? You aren't even in the big leagues here. I'd say that well over 50% of the users on this list have one ore more mailboxes with 1GB storage. Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on your server? 1GB? Not with single instance storage! And as I said, the 90%-10% rule goes to work. No, my regards of a TB as small doesn't mean that I don't know the small business environment, it only means that I work with a large range of customers. But I also know that 1TB isn't that expensive anymore. That's only seven 160GB drives. I've known many small companies with seven drive servers. When 4GB drives were common, it wasn't that odd to have that many drives. Yes, I know that you often have to beg and plead with a customer to get a tape backup. So? That's what I'm saying. The customer (aka "business drivers") get to make the decisions. Don't assume that they always want everything. Don't assume that they want nothing. I've seen too many situations where IT people say that management doesn't want to do something and then someone puts together a quick business case and it goes through unhampered. But the most important thing here is to make believable and knowledgeable recommendations to the business drivers. Make sure that your recommendations are prudent. Understand what levels of spending the business drivers are making. Know what to recommend and when to recommend it. It's a big deal making sure that you are forecasting your needs correctly and getting them into the budget cycle. Make longer term, comprehensive plans. Do you have your email storage charted out for the next 5 years? Do you have growth projections and timelines that new servers or disks will have to come online? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:11 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Unlimited Quotas Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, at 10:47pm, Woodrick, Ed wrote: > And as to disk drives, I can speak pretty knowledgeably in this > situation, there is virtually no storage limitations within Exchange > that impacts the per user storage. Yah, and what about when you run out of physical disk space, or tape space, or backup time? "Buy more/better equipment", you say, but have you ever worked in small company environment, where investing money in IT can sometimes require something close to an act of Congress? > And as to users keeping things forever, that's pretty much hogwash. You don't have our customers, then. We've got several people in several different organizations that have over one *gigabyte* of saved mail data. And we are by no means a large company. > That means that even something as small as a TB requires well over > 1,000 users. The fact that your regard one terabyte as "small" indicates that you don't really understand the small business situation, where we often have to beg and plead with the customer to buy a 20 GB tape backup drive. Quote policy is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis. Blanket statements about what is applicable are bogus. However, not having any policy at all is almost sure to cause headaches down the road. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | not | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, | entity or | org
RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas)
Having lots of messages in one folder will cause noticeably sluggish response when users do things like search, change views or click on column headings to change sort orders. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Grafton Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 6:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) James I guess it depends on your situation as well as best practices. I've noticed no particular performance degredation with people having 1+ messages in their inbox, or another folder [a là my Exchange List Archive folder...] when they are running on a fast (LAN/10Mbit+) link. Users connecting via slow links (<=128Kbit) wait for large folders to appear in Outlook, and it can be unfeasible for them to stack too many messages into one folder. Obviously, attachments are a problem in this situation. Same rule but with lower numbers goes for items in the normal file system when viewed over slow links. Presumably if I got enough users on the end of a 10 or 100Mbit link to the server the performance would degrade if they all have mailboxes with large numbers of items or regularly move big attachments to and from the server. I keep attachments out of individuals mailboxes if possible because with our policies they a) they are not available to others and b) we would hit the 16Gb limit on the mail store in Ex2K std. version PDQ. One reason for us setting a low(ish) limit on mailbox sizes to to encourage people to shift mails into public places, or act upon them and file them for reference. Some of our other sites use the public folder store as a file system with no significant performance degradation outside the increased traffic to and from the server, and the obvious requirement for an Enterprise edition of Exchange and increased disk space. Our servers are pretty capable for the users we have - if you were running a PII 233 with 256Mb of RAM it would obviously croak under any kind of load and you'd have to set some more facist policies. An OWA front end server seems to read the messages on a per-page basis from the back end server which that user is hosted on. Thus if your front server is separated from the back end by a slow link, the performance hit with folders which have large numbers of messages does not appear as great to be as great as when using the full Outlook client over a slow link. All the best, Andy Creuna Danmark A/S Snaregade 10 1205 København K Denmark Tel : +45 22 68 58 23 Fax : +45 70 20 72 42 > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 9. juli 2002 14:10 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > > OK now that that has been beaten to death, I now want to try > and understand the aspects that effect performance (or > perceived performance) for users. So the policy will be set > at a certain large number for storage. Now will exchange run > better if users use folders or does it not matter and I > should just let them use the inbox for everything? And along > those same lines is keeping all their attachments in exchange > a bad thing from a performance standpoint. Again I only want > to consider this from the view point of performance and what > is "best" to keep exchange running well. If using only an > inbox has a negative impact then and only then is it > justified to spend money for training on the use of folders. > Never mind making folks more productive (the one box vs. a > well organized file cabinet). > > Jim Liddil > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Restoring IS
File sizes as shown in the directory do not change until the file is closed, so what you're observing is hardly unusual. Look at free space on the drive as an indicator instead. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris H Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 7:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Restoring IS I am restoring the Information Store to a recovery server that was backed up with NT Backup. I have been restoring for about 4 hours now and I am beginning to wonder if I am just spinning my wheels. Does anyone know if a restore throws the data right back to d:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub.edb | priv.edb or to a temp file first and then to the file? The size of the .edb's has not changed in the four hours . . .priv.edb is 18 gb and pub is 4 gb. And I am sure there is no way to say "Just give me the Pub.edb"? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K Developer Edition
I know there's an SDK for Exchange, but I've never heard of a developer edition of Exchange the MSDN version (for example) is the enterprise version of Exchange. > -Original Message- > From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2K Developer Edition > > Yes there is, it is for developing software for exchange. My guess would > be he means this SDK > http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.as > p?url=/MSDN-FILES/027/001/833/msdncompositedoc.xml or the 5.5 dev thing > you could buy It has some neat little bits and bobs in it. > > --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond > http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:37 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2K Developer Edition > > > There's an E2K developer edition? > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jim Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:44 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: E2K Developer Edition > > > > Can anyone tell me or provide a ref to the differences between > > Exchange 2000 Developer Edition and Exchange 2000 standard edition? > > > > I've searched the entire MS site, including KB, TechNet, and MSDN, and > > > cannot find any info on this. > > > > TIA. > > > > Best Regards, > > JMU > > > > > > Jim Underwood > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
You NEED to read this strait away before you touch anything on this server. They use an exchange aware back like NTbackup on the server itself. Then you need to forget you EVERY saw that M drive until you read up on it, and TEST USING your Test lab MANY Times before you put it in production. 2k DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/e2krecovery.a sp --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jeffery Caudill Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M Drive My intent is to find out how to backup my public folders, I can only find them on the m drive, is there a way to backup this information, or is it also in the information store. thanks, Jeffery Caudill -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jeffery Caudill Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Removing site connectors
Ronald, Check out Q article Q184535 That should be what you are looking for. ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Removing site connectors In my exchange 5.5 / ex2000 site, I have a site connector to a sister server that is no longer in-use. What is the best way to remove the connector?Is there more to it than just hitting delete on the edit menu? Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 with OWA
Just the functionality of front-end/back-end servers!! Organization management want the functions seperated - so I seperate them -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 with OWA Since OWA is running by default on all E2K servers... what are you hoping to test on the FE server that can't be tested on the E2K server directly? > -Original Message- > From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Exchange 2000 with OWA > > Currently running E2K/Ex.5.5 in mixed mode. Want to install a front-end > server (e2k) to go along with the OWA for ex5.5 > mailboxes. That way I can test e2k OWA before removing my last ex5.5 > server. OWA for 5.5 can access both 5.5 & e2k > mailboxes. E2k OWA can only access E2k mailboxes. Can they co-exist? > Or, > once I tell the back-end servers the virtual > server name for the front-end will it remove 5.5 OWA access to the > mailboxes? Has anyone tied the Network Load > Balancing - ie 2 front-end servers with multiple back-ends.? > > Ron > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas)
Set quotas and allow users to manage their mailboxes however they'd like within those quotas. For the most part you're over thinking the rest. It would be nice if users sent shortcuts to files located on network drives, but since I haven't had occasion to do that in 2+ years, I tend not to harp on the idea. > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:10 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > OK now that that has been beaten to death, I now want to try and > understand > the aspects that effect performance (or perceived performance) for users. > So > the policy will be set at a certain large number for storage. Now will > exchange run better if users use folders or does it not matter and I > should > just let them use the inbox for everything? And along those same lines is > keeping all their attachments in exchange a bad thing from a performance > standpoint. Again I only want to consider this from the view point of > performance and what is "best" to keep exchange running well. If using > only > an inbox has a negative impact then and only then is it justified to spend > money for training on the use of folders. Never mind making folks more > productive (the one box vs. a well organized file cabinet). _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas)
Only applies to PST files. > -Original Message- > From: Greg Heywood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > I mentioned this before, but I am pretty sure there is a limit on the each > folder of around 16k messages and 2gb (or 1.8)? Pretty sure about the > messages, and fairly sure about the folder size. > > Cheers > Greg > > > -Original Message- > From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 09 July 2002 14:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > James I guess it depends on your situation as well as best practices. > > I've noticed no particular performance degredation with people having > 1+ > messages in their inbox, or another folder [a là my Exchange List Archive > folder...] when they are running on a fast (LAN/10Mbit+) link. > > Users connecting via slow links (<=128Kbit) wait for large folders to > appear > in Outlook, and it can be unfeasible for them to stack too many messages > into one folder. Obviously, attachments are a problem in this situation. > > Same rule but with lower numbers goes for items in the normal file system > when viewed over slow links. > > Presumably if I got enough users on the end of a 10 or 100Mbit link to the > server the performance would degrade if they all have mailboxes with large > numbers of items or regularly move big attachments to and from the server. > > I keep attachments out of individuals mailboxes if possible because with > our > policies they a) they are not available to others and b) we would hit the > 16Gb limit on the mail store in Ex2K std. version PDQ. > > One reason for us setting a low(ish) limit on mailbox sizes to to > encourage > people to shift mails into public places, or act upon them and file them > for > reference. > > Some of our other sites use the public folder store as a file system with > no > significant performance degradation outside the increased traffic to and > from the server, and the obvious requirement for an Enterprise edition of > Exchange and increased disk space. Our servers are pretty capable for the > users we have - if you were running a PII 233 with 256Mb of RAM it would > obviously croak under any kind of load and you'd have to set some more > facist policies. > > An OWA front end server seems to read the messages on a per-page basis > from > the back end server which that user is hosted on. Thus if your front > server > is separated from the back end by a slow link, the performance hit with > folders which have large numbers of messages does not appear as great to > be > as great as when using the full Outlook client over a slow link. > > All the best, > > Andy > > Creuna Danmark A/S > Snaregade 10 > 1205 København K > Denmark > > Tel : +45 22 68 58 23 > Fax : +45 70 20 72 42 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 9. juli 2002 14:10 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > > > > > OK now that that has been beaten to death, I now want to try > > and understand the aspects that effect performance (or > > perceived performance) for users. So the policy will be set > > at a certain large number for storage. Now will exchange run > > better if users use folders or does it not matter and I > > should just let them use the inbox for everything? And along > > those same lines is keeping all their attachments in exchange > > a bad thing from a performance standpoint. Again I only want > > to consider this from the view point of performance and what > > is "best" to keep exchange running well. If using only an > > inbox has a negative impact then and only then is it > > justified to spend money for training on the use of folders. > > Never mind making folks more productive (the one box vs. a > > well organized file cabinet). > > > > Jim Liddil > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ** > * > Please note that neither International Power plc nor the sender accepts > any > responsibility for any viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its > attachments. It is therefore your responsibility to ensure that your > systems have adequate protection against viru
RE: M Drive
It's in the public information store. Check the swinc.com Exchange FAQ for a link to the disaster recovery whitepapers. I was just rereading them last week... quite helpful. > -Original Message- > From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:30 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: M Drive > > My intent is to find out how to backup my public folders, I can only find > them on the m drive, is there a way to backup this information, or is it > also in the information store. > thanks, > Jeffery Caudill > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:23 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Cc: Jeffery Caudill > Subject: RE: M Drive > > > Jeffrey, > > You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it > is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the > Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the > risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the > Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you > get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware > products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, > eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. > > You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: M Drive > > > What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my > server have any problems by doing so > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The > service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
thank you for the information, jeff -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, Find the server that the public folders are homed on and backup the Public Folder store there, using an Exchange aware product. Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 15:30 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M Drive My intent is to find out how to backup my public folders, I can only find them on the m drive, is there a way to backup this information, or is it also in the information store. thanks, Jeffery Caudill -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jeffery Caudill Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Calendar issue
All users? Some users? > -Original Message- > From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:41 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Calendar issue > > Good day All, > > Exchange 2000 SP2/OLXP; > > Cannot see another user's calendar(no information/no free/busy information > could be retrieved), looks like a permissions issue.A meeting can be > scheduled with the user though. > Any ideas on where to start looking to correct this problem. > > TIA > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K Developer Edition
Yes there is, it is for developing software for exchange. My guess would be he means this SDK http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?url=/downloads/sample.as p?url=/MSDN-FILES/027/001/833/msdncompositedoc.xml or the 5.5 dev thing you could buy It has some neat little bits and bobs in it. --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K Developer Edition There's an E2K developer edition? > -Original Message- > From: Jim Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:44 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: E2K Developer Edition > > Can anyone tell me or provide a ref to the differences between > Exchange 2000 Developer Edition and Exchange 2000 standard edition? > > I've searched the entire MS site, including KB, TechNet, and MSDN, and > cannot find any info on this. > > TIA. > > Best Regards, > JMU > > > Jim Underwood _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 with OWA
Since OWA is running by default on all E2K servers... what are you hoping to test on the FE server that can't be tested on the E2K server directly? > -Original Message- > From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Exchange 2000 with OWA > > Currently running E2K/Ex.5.5 in mixed mode. Want to install a front-end > server (e2k) to go along with the OWA for ex5.5 > mailboxes. That way I can test e2k OWA before removing my last ex5.5 > server. OWA for 5.5 can access both 5.5 & e2k > mailboxes. E2k OWA can only access E2k mailboxes. Can they co-exist? > Or, > once I tell the back-end servers the virtual > server name for the front-end will it remove 5.5 OWA access to the > mailboxes? Has anyone tied the Network Load > Balancing - ie 2 front-end servers with multiple back-ends.? > > Ron > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
Jeffrey, Find the server that the public folders are homed on and backup the Public Folder store there, using an Exchange aware product. Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 15:30 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M Drive My intent is to find out how to backup my public folders, I can only find them on the m drive, is there a way to backup this information, or is it also in the information store. thanks, Jeffery Caudill -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jeffery Caudill Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
It's in the Information Store. Chant with us allThere is no M drive...There is no M driveThere is no M Drive Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M Drive My intent is to find out how to backup my public folders, I can only find them on the m drive, is there a way to backup this information, or is it also in the information store. thanks, Jeffery Caudill -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jeffery Caudill Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Can't open attachments
Sounds like it might be an AV issue... > -Original Message- > From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 8:26 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Can't open attachments > > > > Hi Everyone, > > I have a problem with a user (using Outlook 2000) who can't open > attachments. > When she opens new e-mails there is no attachment icon displayed even > though > > the message contains an attachment. She can open e-mail that was sent to > her > yesterday but not today's. This isn't an Outlook blocking .exe file type > issue. It seems to be server side problem because she has the same trouble > regardless of the PC she uses. > > The Exchange server is running W2K (SP2) and Exchange 5.5 (SP4). No other > users are affected. There are no limits placed on her mailboxe. Several > weeks ago I migrated her mailbox from an old mail server to the current > one. > I don't know if this is relevant though because she's bee fine until now. > Any ideas? > > Regards > Tony _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000
Shouldn't have a problem.. -Original Message- From: Jesse Rink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000 No. It's just a member server. > Shouldn't have any problems with the upgrade. Is it a domain controller? > > > -Original Message- > From: Jesse Rink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:52 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000 > > > My Windows NT4 sp6a server running Exchange 5.5 SP4 box is finally going > to be upgraded to Windows 2000. Shortly after I'll be upgrading to > Exchange 2000. > > Are there any "gotchas" I need to worry about wiht the OS upgrade? Should > I set all Exchange services to manual before the upgrade process? I have > the hardware drivers and all that junk accounted for already. Just have > never done an upgrade on a Exchange box... > > Also, I'm taking a full offline backup of the server and setting the NAV > service to manual so it wont interfere with any upgrade either. What am I > missing? Thanks > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K Developer Edition
There's an E2K developer edition? > -Original Message- > From: Jim Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:44 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: E2K Developer Edition > > Can anyone tell me or provide a ref to the differences between Exchange > 2000 > Developer Edition and Exchange 2000 standard edition? > > I've searched the entire MS site, including KB, TechNet, and MSDN, and > cannot find any info on this. > > TIA. > > Best Regards, > JMU > > > Jim Underwood _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
I think Ed understands SIS quite well. > -Original Message- > From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:39 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > On your comment about > > Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on your server? > 1GB? > Not with single instance storage! > --- > I think you might not quite understand the problem with SIS, it is only > good > for when the email is being sent in transit because as soon as it arrives > and the person replies to it with Outlook, bingo no more SIS for that > message. My last place of work and current we get roughly 1.3 ratio. > > Cheers > > Paul > > Standards are like toothbrushes, > everybody agrees you should have one, > but no one wants to use yours > > > > -Original Message- > From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 6:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > Yes I've worked in small companies. And I've sold to small companies. I > dare > say that I understand the dynamics fairly well. Disk space, tape space, > and > backup time are all simple issues, present them to the purse strings and > let > them make the decision. > > 1GB of saved email? You aren't even in the big leagues here. I'd say that > well over 50% of the users on this list have one ore more mailboxes with > 1GB > storage. Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on your > server? 1GB? Not with single instance storage! And as I said, the 90%-10% > rule goes to work. > > No, my regards of a TB as small doesn't mean that I don't know the small > business environment, it only means that I work with a large range of > customers. But I also know that 1TB isn't that expensive anymore. That's > only seven 160GB drives. I've known many small companies with seven drive > servers. When 4GB drives were common, it wasn't that odd to have that many > drives. > > Yes, I know that you often have to beg and plead with a customer to get a > tape backup. So? That's what I'm saying. The customer (aka "business > drivers") get to make the decisions. Don't assume that they always want > everything. Don't assume that they want nothing. I've seen too many > situations where IT people say that management doesn't want to do > something > and then someone puts together a quick business case and it goes through > unhampered. > > > > But the most important thing here is to make believable and knowledgeable > recommendations to the business drivers. Make sure that your > recommendations > are prudent. Understand what levels of spending the business drivers are > making. Know what to recommend and when to recommend it. It's a big deal > making sure that you are forecasting your needs correctly and getting them > into the budget cycle. Make longer term, comprehensive plans. Do you have > your email storage charted out for the next 5 years? Do you have growth > projections and timelines that new servers or disks will have to come > online? > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:11 AM > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > Conversation: Unlimited Quotas > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, at 10:47pm, Woodrick, Ed wrote: > > And as to disk drives, I can speak pretty knowledgeably in this > > situation, there is virtually no storage limitations within Exchange > > that impacts the per user storage. > > Yah, and what about when you run out of physical disk space, or tape > space, or backup time? "Buy more/better equipment", you say, but have you > ever worked in small company environment, where investing money in IT can > sometimes require something close to an act of Congress? > > > And as to users keeping things forever, that's pretty much hogwash. > > You don't have our customers, then. We've got several people in several > different organizations that have over one *gigabyte* of saved mail data. > And we are by no means a large company. > > > That means that even something as small as a TB requires well over > > 1,000 users. > > The fact that your regard one terabyte as "small" indicates that you > don't > really understand the small business situation, where we often have to beg > and plead with the customer to buy a 20 GB tape backup drive. > > Quote policy is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis. > > Blanket statements about what is applicable are bogus. However, not > having > any policy at all is almost sure to cause headaches down the road. > > -- > Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do > | not | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, > | entity or | organization. All information is provided without > | warranty of any kind. | > > > > ___
RE: GAL empty
Sounds like the search permissions have been restricted inappropriately. What changes were made prior to this? > -Original Message- > From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: GAL empty > > I have Exchange 2000 Server with SP2. > In Outlook my Global Address List is empty. All client have the same > problem. The client can send and recive e-mail but can not see the GAL. > If I try to create another Outlook profile I recive the following message: > "The name could not be resolved. The name could not be matched to a name > in the address list." > I read this articol: Error Message Occurs When Attempting to Resolve Names > (Q274668)...no help. > > Any idea ?? > > Laurentiu > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Archiving old email to tape silos
www.mail-resources.com lists several archival products in the web links section. > -Original Message- > From: malcolm taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Archiving old email to tape silos > > I have been asked by management to drastically reduce > our usage of EMC disk space by archiving old email to > tape silos. > I have read about Veritas Netbackup Storage Migrator > for Exchange. > Two questions:- > 1 Has anybody any comments good or bad re the Veritas > product? > 2 Are there any other products which will archive to > tape ? > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Everything you'll ever need on one web page > from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts > http://uk.my.yahoo.com > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GAL empty
try creating another outlook profileBUT use a different name than before..we have done this in the past and it fixed it.. dave -Original Message- From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: GAL empty I have Exchange 2000 Server with SP2. In Outlook my Global Address List is empty. All client have the same problem. The client can send and recive e-mail but can not see the GAL. If I try to create another Outlook profile I recive the following message: "The name could not be resolved. The name could not be matched to a name in the address list." I read this articol: Error Message Occurs When Attempting to Resolve Names (Q274668)...no help. Any idea ?? Laurentiu _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
My intent is to find out how to backup my public folders, I can only find them on the m drive, is there a way to backup this information, or is it also in the information store. thanks, Jeffery Caudill -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jeffery Caudill Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
Ignore the M: Drive. Do not back up the M: Drive. There is no M: Drive. > -Original Message- > From: Jeffery Caudill > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:05 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: M Drive > > > What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my > server have any problems by doing so > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GAL empty
Fix the RUS -Original Message- From: Laurentiu Bogdan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:59 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: GAL empty Subject: GAL empty I have Exchange 2000 Server with SP2. In Outlook my Global Address List is empty. All client have the same problem. The client can send and recive e-mail but can not see the GAL. If I try to create another Outlook profile I recive the following message: "The name could not be resolved. The name could not be matched to a name in the address list." I read this articol: Error Message Occurs When Attempting to Resolve Names (Q274668)...no help. Any idea ?? Laurentiu _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
Let's be a bit more clear on this subject. IF you mess around with your M drive, anti-virus, backing up, etc., expect to be doing some fixing. M drive is a virtual drive and NOT to be touched by anything. If you do, you take a great chance of corrupting your M Drive and then the next question you will be asking is, "How do I restore my E2K server?" hth Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Mike Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: M Drive Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unknown users e-mails entering environment
This seems to be a new practice for spammers, we just spoke about it yesterday. They fake their headers just like the klez, but the only payload is the annoying email. Figure out the sending server from the header and see if it is a domain that you can block. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: unknown users e-mails entering environment Could be Klez... -Original Message- From: Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: unknown users e-mails entering environment exchange 5.5, sp4, nt4, sp6a I am seeing a rash of e-mails being delivered to users where the FROM and TO addresses are ex-employees of the company. The users who are getting the e-mails are not on the FROM, TO, or BCC lines. if I send an e-mail to any of the addresses in the e-mail, I will get an undeliverable message stating user not in address book. any sugestions?? thanks Jon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000
No. It's just a member server. > Shouldn't have any problems with the upgrade. Is it a domain controller? > > > -Original Message- > From: Jesse Rink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:52 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000 > > > My Windows NT4 sp6a server running Exchange 5.5 SP4 box is finally going > to be upgraded to Windows 2000. Shortly after I'll be upgrading to > Exchange 2000. > > Are there any "gotchas" I need to worry about wiht the OS upgrade? Should > I set all Exchange services to manual before the upgrade process? I have > the hardware drivers and all that junk accounted for already. Just have > never done an upgrade on a Exchange box... > > Also, I'm taking a full offline backup of the server and setting the NAV > service to manual so it wont interfere with any upgrade either. What am I > missing? Thanks > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000
Shouldn't have any problems with the upgrade. Is it a domain controller? -Original Message- From: Jesse Rink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000 My Windows NT4 sp6a server running Exchange 5.5 SP4 box is finally going to be upgraded to Windows 2000. Shortly after I'll be upgrading to Exchange 2000. Are there any "gotchas" I need to worry about wiht the OS upgrade? Should I set all Exchange services to manual before the upgrade process? I have the hardware drivers and all that junk accounted for already. Just have never done an upgrade on a Exchange box... Also, I'm taking a full offline backup of the server and setting the NAV service to manual so it wont interfere with any upgrade either. What am I missing? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
Jeffrey, You can you any backup software you like to backup your M: drive, but it is highly un-recommended. The M: drive is a virtual drive looking at the Exchange IS. For any other purpose it is best to leave alone, at the risk of causing database corruption or at least confusion. To backup the Exchange IS you can use the Exchange aware version of NTBACKUP that you get with Exchange installed on Windows, or any number of Exchange aware products specifically designed to backup the Exchange information store, eg: Arcserve, BackupExec etc. You may see an M: drive there, but do your best to ignore it. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Jeffery Caudill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 July 2002 22:05 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M Drive What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unknown users e-mails entering environment
What do the emails look like (subject, body) - are they similar? John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:21 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: unknown users e-mails entering environment > > > exchange 5.5, sp4, nt4, sp6a > I am seeing a rash of e-mails being delivered to users where > the FROM and > TO addresses are ex-employees of the company. The users who > are getting > the e-mails are not on the FROM, TO, or BCC lines. > > if I send an e-mail to any of the addresses in the e-mail, I > will get an > undeliverable message stating user not in address book. > > any sugestions?? > thanks > Jon > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Can't open attachments
Blow away profile and recreate (I know you probably did it, but try it again). If no luck, I would still uninstall Outlook and reinstall Outlook (don't just install Outlook over the version on the machine). If that doesn't work, try ExMerging her mailbox and recreating it. It sounds like there is some type of corruption in the mailbox/profile. Geoff... -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Can't open attachments Hi Everyone, I have a problem with a user (using Outlook 2000) who can't open attachments. When she opens new e-mails there is no attachment icon displayed even though the message contains an attachment. She can open e-mail that was sent to her yesterday but not today's. This isn't an Outlook blocking .exe file type issue. It seems to be server side problem because she has the same trouble regardless of the PC she uses. The Exchange server is running W2K (SP2) and Exchange 5.5 (SP4). No other users are affected. There are no limits placed on her mailboxe. Several weeks ago I migrated her mailbox from an old mail server to the current one. I don't know if this is relevant though because she's bee fine until now. Any ideas? Regards Tony _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M Drive
You are trolling, right? Read this http://www.swinc.com/resource/e2kfaq_sec5.htm ..any other questions, see the archives... Leave it there, guys? Please? Andy > -Original Message- > From: Jeffery Caudill > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 8. juli 2002 23:05 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: M Drive > > > What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this > make my server have any problems by doing so > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unknown users e-mails entering environment
Could be Klez... -Original Message- From: Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: unknown users e-mails entering environment exchange 5.5, sp4, nt4, sp6a I am seeing a rash of e-mails being delivered to users where the FROM and TO addresses are ex-employees of the company. The users who are getting the e-mails are not on the FROM, TO, or BCC lines. if I send an e-mail to any of the addresses in the e-mail, I will get an undeliverable message stating user not in address book. any sugestions?? thanks Jon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unknown users e-mails entering environment
exchange 5.5, sp4, nt4, sp6a I am seeing a rash of e-mails being delivered to users where the FROM and TO addresses are ex-employees of the company. The users who are getting the e-mails are not on the FROM, TO, or BCC lines. if I send an e-mail to any of the addresses in the e-mail, I will get an undeliverable message stating user not in address book. any sugestions?? thanks Jon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archiving old email to tape silos
I have been asked by management to drastically reduce our usage of EMC disk space by archiving old email to tape silos. I have read about Veritas Netbackup Storage Migrator for Exchange. Two questions:- 1 Has anybody any comments good or bad re the Veritas product? 2 Are there any other products which will archive to tape ? __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
M Drive
What program can I use to Back-up the M drive and, will this make my server have any problems by doing so _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Can't open attachments
Are you sure the attachment enters the Exchange system? -Original Message- From: Tony McCarthy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 02:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Can't open attachments Hi Everyone, I have a problem with a user (using Outlook 2000) who can't open attachments. When she opens new e-mails there is no attachment icon displayed even though the message contains an attachment. She can open e-mail that was sent to her yesterday but not today's. This isn't an Outlook blocking .exe file type issue. It seems to be server side problem because she has the same trouble regardless of the PC she uses. The Exchange server is running W2K (SP2) and Exchange 5.5 (SP4). No other users are affected. There are no limits placed on her mailboxe. Several weeks ago I migrated her mailbox from an old mail server to the current one. I don't know if this is relevant though because she's bee fine until now. Any ideas? Regards Tony _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Confidentiality Notice The content of this e-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not such a person, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that reading it, copying it, or in any way disseminating its content to any other person, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail immediately. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB - A Public Company (publ) - is incorporated in Stockholm Sweden with limited liability and is regulated by The Financial Services Authority for the conduct of designated investment business in the United Kingdom. It is registered in England and Wales under Number BR000979. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Removing site connectors
In my exchange 5.5 / ex2000 site, I have a site connector to a sister server that is no longer in-use. What is the best way to remove the connector?Is there more to it than just hitting delete on the edit menu? Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GAL empty
I have Exchange 2000 Server with SP2. In Outlook my Global Address List is empty. All client have the same problem. The client can send and recive e-mail but can not see the GAL. If I try to create another Outlook profile I recive the following message: "The name could not be resolved. The name could not be matched to a name in the address list." I read this articol: Error Message Occurs When Attempting to Resolve Names (Q274668)...no help. Any idea ?? Laurentiu _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upgrading my NT4 exchange 5.5 box to Win2000
My Windows NT4 sp6a server running Exchange 5.5 SP4 box is finally going to be upgraded to Windows 2000. Shortly after I'll be upgrading to Exchange 2000. Are there any "gotchas" I need to worry about wiht the OS upgrade? Should I set all Exchange services to manual before the upgrade process? I have the hardware drivers and all that junk accounted for already. Just have never done an upgrade on a Exchange box... Also, I'm taking a full offline backup of the server and setting the NAV service to manual so it wont interfere with any upgrade either. What am I missing? Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
Hi, I would like to add some questions or thoughts here. As an IT professional, business managers have to be educated and 'yes' they must be tuned into ramifications, etc but most of the time business decision makers don't give time to IT until something is broken. Seen strictly as a service based org, which IT is, there has to be some dynamics from both ends of the spectrum, IT and the business managers. A proactive IT manager has to have credibility and trust from the management to present options, etc and carry them out. It is a hard role one finds themself in and the fight always comes down to the CFO and IT manager in the end. This thread is definitely a good one and I might add true. The limitations and work with managers can become a 'burden' IT managers will experience if they are willing to push the envelope and do the proactive technology and work. For the email issue, I allowed no quotas in order to keep Engineering happy detailing the ramifications and hazards. Not only did the store finally take down the volume space but the engineers finally gave up control and realized they were not sys admins nor networking professionals. This not only happened with Email but also with source control. Anyway, that is what I find the largest burden to be overall. It is a constant process of education. Erik L. Vesneski Director - Information Technology www.epicentric.com -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas Like the other Ed is telling you, it shouldn't be your job to make their business decisions. You explain the ramifications of having no quotas currently, what it will mean in the future, and the costs to change things. That is, you present options to management. You should be positioning your job as a service provider, a helper. Do your best to leave the policeman role to those best equipped to handle it, i.e., management. Your customers, the users, will love you more in the morning that way. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > And the whole idea is that as a support shop, your job is to > support. Has management told you to put limits? When the > email or file system was presented to them, did you say that > there were going to be limits. No. But I had no idea things would get the way they have. I do have mailbox management set to delete mail from the "deleted items" every seven days. Looking at the recent run shows a few users who had over 10 megs of stuff in there. So users need more training. Easier said than done. So I had a discussion with the CFO about this. His analogy is that never emptying the trash is like letting junk mail build up on your table until it breaks. Do people do this? And if they want to then the decision will be made to not spend the money on raises but on more computer hardware/software. > > Your job is to keep people from doing really stupid (not what > you think is stupid, I mean really stupid) things that impact > IT and then to respond to, or be proactive in creating > solutions to business problems. You have presented no cases > that justify any limits. You've actually presented some > pretty good cases for not having limits. Your company is > small, probably to get away from the large staffs and stay > innovative. This means that you really shouldn't be stifling > innovation, don't get in people's way, HELP them do their > job. If you see something that they are doing and there is a > better way, help them learn a better way. If they need to > store 2 GB in the mail server, let them. If they are keeping > a backup of their disk, then advise them that there are > better ways, but more importantly, make those better ways > available and very easy for them to use. In a perfect world. I only wish I had the time, resources and energy to do what you say. You are right that we want to stay innovative, but let me tell you that there is as much stagnation as in a big company. I am a scientist (pharmacologist) by training and spent many years doing drug development research. Now I am a computer geek and I understand the importance of computers as a tool for doing research. I have been on both sides and still am. But computers like any scientific instrument require a certain amount of maintenance etc. Too often users feel computers are not like other tools and need no maintenance/tuning. As much as I try to make a case to management to pay for more training, tools etc. they decide to spend money on other things, even though we are a bioinformatics driven business. So I have to do things that help me maintain my sanity/life.
RE: Unlimited Quotas
Don't question the Ed. The original message is still stored using SIS. Each reply is also stored using SIS. > -Original Message- > From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:39 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > On your comment about > > Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on > your server? 1GB? > Not with single instance storage! > --- > I think you might not quite understand the problem with SIS, > it is only good > for when the email is being sent in transit because as soon > as it arrives > and the person replies to it with Outlook, bingo no more SIS for that > message. My last place of work and current we get roughly 1.3 ratio. > > Cheers > > Paul > > Standards are like toothbrushes, > everybody agrees you should have one, > but no one wants to use yours > > > > -Original Message- > From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 6:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > Yes I've worked in small companies. And I've sold to small > companies. I dare > say that I understand the dynamics fairly well. Disk space, > tape space, and > backup time are all simple issues, present them to the purse > strings and let > them make the decision. > > 1GB of saved email? You aren't even in the big leagues here. > I'd say that > well over 50% of the users on this list have one ore more > mailboxes with 1GB > storage. Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually > taking up on your > server? 1GB? Not with single instance storage! And as I said, > the 90%-10% > rule goes to work. > > No, my regards of a TB as small doesn't mean that I don't > know the small > business environment, it only means that I work with a large range of > customers. But I also know that 1TB isn't that expensive > anymore. That's > only seven 160GB drives. I've known many small companies with > seven drive > servers. When 4GB drives were common, it wasn't that odd to > have that many > drives. > > Yes, I know that you often have to beg and plead with a > customer to get a > tape backup. So? That's what I'm saying. The customer (aka "business > drivers") get to make the decisions. Don't assume that they > always want > everything. Don't assume that they want nothing. I've seen too many > situations where IT people say that management doesn't want > to do something > and then someone puts together a quick business case and it > goes through > unhampered. > > > > But the most important thing here is to make believable and > knowledgeable > recommendations to the business drivers. Make sure that your > recommendations > are prudent. Understand what levels of spending the business > drivers are > making. Know what to recommend and when to recommend it. It's > a big deal > making sure that you are forecasting your needs correctly and > getting them > into the budget cycle. Make longer term, comprehensive plans. > Do you have > your email storage charted out for the next 5 years? Do you > have growth > projections and timelines that new servers or disks will have to come > online? > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:11 AM > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > Conversation: Unlimited Quotas > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, at 10:47pm, Woodrick, Ed wrote: > > And as to disk drives, I can speak pretty knowledgeably in this > > situation, there is virtually no storage limitations within > Exchange > > that impacts the per user storage. > > Yah, and what about when you run out of physical disk space, or tape > space, or backup time? "Buy more/better equipment", you say, > but have you > ever worked in small company environment, where investing > money in IT can > sometimes require something close to an act of Congress? > > > And as to users keeping things forever, that's pretty much hogwash. > > You don't have our customers, then. We've got several > people in several > different organizations that have over one *gigabyte* of > saved mail data. > And we are by no means a large company. > > > That means that even something as small as a TB requires well over > > 1,000 users. > > The fact that your regard one terabyte as "small" indicates > that you don't > really understand the small business situation, where we > often have to beg > and plead with the customer to buy a 20 GB tape backup drive. > > Quote policy is something that should be done on a > case-by-case basis. > > Blanket statements about what is applicable are bogus. > However, not having > any policy at all is almost sure to cause headaches down the road. > > -- > Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the > author and do > | not | necessarily repr
RE: Unlimited Quotas
On your comment about Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on your server? 1GB? Not with single instance storage! --- I think you might not quite understand the problem with SIS, it is only good for when the email is being sent in transit because as soon as it arrives and the person replies to it with Outlook, bingo no more SIS for that message. My last place of work and current we get roughly 1.3 ratio. Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everybody agrees you should have one, but no one wants to use yours -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 6:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas Yes I've worked in small companies. And I've sold to small companies. I dare say that I understand the dynamics fairly well. Disk space, tape space, and backup time are all simple issues, present them to the purse strings and let them make the decision. 1GB of saved email? You aren't even in the big leagues here. I'd say that well over 50% of the users on this list have one ore more mailboxes with 1GB storage. Oh, and by the way, how much is that actually taking up on your server? 1GB? Not with single instance storage! And as I said, the 90%-10% rule goes to work. No, my regards of a TB as small doesn't mean that I don't know the small business environment, it only means that I work with a large range of customers. But I also know that 1TB isn't that expensive anymore. That's only seven 160GB drives. I've known many small companies with seven drive servers. When 4GB drives were common, it wasn't that odd to have that many drives. Yes, I know that you often have to beg and plead with a customer to get a tape backup. So? That's what I'm saying. The customer (aka "business drivers") get to make the decisions. Don't assume that they always want everything. Don't assume that they want nothing. I've seen too many situations where IT people say that management doesn't want to do something and then someone puts together a quick business case and it goes through unhampered. But the most important thing here is to make believable and knowledgeable recommendations to the business drivers. Make sure that your recommendations are prudent. Understand what levels of spending the business drivers are making. Know what to recommend and when to recommend it. It's a big deal making sure that you are forecasting your needs correctly and getting them into the budget cycle. Make longer term, comprehensive plans. Do you have your email storage charted out for the next 5 years? Do you have growth projections and timelines that new servers or disks will have to come online? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Monday, July 08, 2002 10:11 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Unlimited Quotas Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, at 10:47pm, Woodrick, Ed wrote: > And as to disk drives, I can speak pretty knowledgeably in this > situation, there is virtually no storage limitations within Exchange > that impacts the per user storage. Yah, and what about when you run out of physical disk space, or tape space, or backup time? "Buy more/better equipment", you say, but have you ever worked in small company environment, where investing money in IT can sometimes require something close to an act of Congress? > And as to users keeping things forever, that's pretty much hogwash. You don't have our customers, then. We've got several people in several different organizations that have over one *gigabyte* of saved mail data. And we are by no means a large company. > That means that even something as small as a TB requires well over > 1,000 users. The fact that your regard one terabyte as "small" indicates that you don't really understand the small business situation, where we often have to beg and plead with the customer to buy a 20 GB tape backup drive. Quote policy is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis. Blanket statements about what is applicable are bogus. However, not having any policy at all is almost sure to cause headaches down the road. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | not | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, | entity or | organization. All information is provided without | warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/
RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas)
I mentioned this before, but I am pretty sure there is a limit on the each folder of around 16k messages and 2gb (or 1.8)? Pretty sure about the messages, and fairly sure about the folder size. Cheers Greg -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 July 2002 14:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) James I guess it depends on your situation as well as best practices. I've noticed no particular performance degredation with people having 1+ messages in their inbox, or another folder [a là my Exchange List Archive folder...] when they are running on a fast (LAN/10Mbit+) link. Users connecting via slow links (<=128Kbit) wait for large folders to appear in Outlook, and it can be unfeasible for them to stack too many messages into one folder. Obviously, attachments are a problem in this situation. Same rule but with lower numbers goes for items in the normal file system when viewed over slow links. Presumably if I got enough users on the end of a 10 or 100Mbit link to the server the performance would degrade if they all have mailboxes with large numbers of items or regularly move big attachments to and from the server. I keep attachments out of individuals mailboxes if possible because with our policies they a) they are not available to others and b) we would hit the 16Gb limit on the mail store in Ex2K std. version PDQ. One reason for us setting a low(ish) limit on mailbox sizes to to encourage people to shift mails into public places, or act upon them and file them for reference. Some of our other sites use the public folder store as a file system with no significant performance degradation outside the increased traffic to and from the server, and the obvious requirement for an Enterprise edition of Exchange and increased disk space. Our servers are pretty capable for the users we have - if you were running a PII 233 with 256Mb of RAM it would obviously croak under any kind of load and you'd have to set some more facist policies. An OWA front end server seems to read the messages on a per-page basis from the back end server which that user is hosted on. Thus if your front server is separated from the back end by a slow link, the performance hit with folders which have large numbers of messages does not appear as great to be as great as when using the full Outlook client over a slow link. All the best, Andy Creuna Danmark A/S Snaregade 10 1205 København K Denmark Tel : +45 22 68 58 23 Fax : +45 70 20 72 42 > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 9. juli 2002 14:10 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > > OK now that that has been beaten to death, I now want to try > and understand the aspects that effect performance (or > perceived performance) for users. So the policy will be set > at a certain large number for storage. Now will exchange run > better if users use folders or does it not matter and I > should just let them use the inbox for everything? And along > those same lines is keeping all their attachments in exchange > a bad thing from a performance standpoint. Again I only want > to consider this from the view point of performance and what > is "best" to keep exchange running well. If using only an > inbox has a negative impact then and only then is it > justified to spend money for training on the use of folders. > Never mind making folks more productive (the one box vs. a > well organized file cabinet). > > Jim Liddil > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Please note that neither International Power plc nor the sender accepts any responsibility for any viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments. It is therefore your responsibility to ensure that your systems have adequate protection against virus infection. The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the use of the intended recipient at the e-mail address to which it has been addressed. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination or copying of the message or associated attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
RE: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas)
James I guess it depends on your situation as well as best practices. I've noticed no particular performance degredation with people having 1+ messages in their inbox, or another folder [a là my Exchange List Archive folder...] when they are running on a fast (LAN/10Mbit+) link. Users connecting via slow links (<=128Kbit) wait for large folders to appear in Outlook, and it can be unfeasible for them to stack too many messages into one folder. Obviously, attachments are a problem in this situation. Same rule but with lower numbers goes for items in the normal file system when viewed over slow links. Presumably if I got enough users on the end of a 10 or 100Mbit link to the server the performance would degrade if they all have mailboxes with large numbers of items or regularly move big attachments to and from the server. I keep attachments out of individuals mailboxes if possible because with our policies they a) they are not available to others and b) we would hit the 16Gb limit on the mail store in Ex2K std. version PDQ. One reason for us setting a low(ish) limit on mailbox sizes to to encourage people to shift mails into public places, or act upon them and file them for reference. Some of our other sites use the public folder store as a file system with no significant performance degradation outside the increased traffic to and from the server, and the obvious requirement for an Enterprise edition of Exchange and increased disk space. Our servers are pretty capable for the users we have - if you were running a PII 233 with 256Mb of RAM it would obviously croak under any kind of load and you'd have to set some more facist policies. An OWA front end server seems to read the messages on a per-page basis from the back end server which that user is hosted on. Thus if your front server is separated from the back end by a slow link, the performance hit with folders which have large numbers of messages does not appear as great to be as great as when using the full Outlook client over a slow link. All the best, Andy Creuna Danmark A/S Snaregade 10 1205 København K Denmark Tel : +45 22 68 58 23 Fax : +45 70 20 72 42 > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 9. juli 2002 14:10 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas) > > > OK now that that has been beaten to death, I now want to try > and understand the aspects that effect performance (or > perceived performance) for users. So the policy will be set > at a certain large number for storage. Now will exchange run > better if users use folders or does it not matter and I > should just let them use the inbox for everything? And along > those same lines is keeping all their attachments in exchange > a bad thing from a performance standpoint. Again I only want > to consider this from the view point of performance and what > is "best" to keep exchange running well. If using only an > inbox has a negative impact then and only then is it > justified to spend money for training on the use of folders. > Never mind making folks more productive (the one box vs. a > well organized file cabinet). > > Jim Liddil > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
James writes; > But then they talk about how the IT guy is a dick etc. > Already had that happen. If anyone finds a surefire way to avoid this happening, then they could be Very Rich Very Quick (put me on the DL)... All the best, An"déjà vu"dy > > > -Original Message- > > From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:18 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > And then when the users come yelling, just point the finger > > to the direction where blame goes. It's rather amazing how > > people won't go complaining to a CEO or other decision maker > > level person. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
One Folder (was Unlimited Quotas)
OK now that that has been beaten to death, I now want to try and understand the aspects that effect performance (or perceived performance) for users. So the policy will be set at a certain large number for storage. Now will exchange run better if users use folders or does it not matter and I should just let them use the inbox for everything? And along those same lines is keeping all their attachments in exchange a bad thing from a performance standpoint. Again I only want to consider this from the view point of performance and what is "best" to keep exchange running well. If using only an inbox has a negative impact then and only then is it justified to spend money for training on the use of folders. Never mind making folks more productive (the one box vs. a well organized file cabinet). Jim Liddil _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Routing
Scenario : Ex 5.5 SP4 , NT4 SP6a Site One : Exchange 5.5 Site Two : Mdaemon Fixed megastrem link between the two sites. Problem : Our mail to Site two currently goes out across BT. How do I make any mail adressed to Site two use the fixed link instead of BT. TIA Coolchain LtdCoolchain Ltd London Road Henley Road Teynham Paddock Wood Kent Kent ME9 9PR TN12 6DN Tel: 01795 523200Tel: 01892 831400 Fax: 01795 523241Fax: 01892 831451 All business is conducted in accordance with the company's terms and conditions, a copy of which is available on request. For the avoidance of doubt, all orders initiated by ourselves must be signed by an authorised signatory of this company. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
And then I can call you and pay you to fix the mess. :-) Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 3:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > It is possible that your best option is to do as I suggest > and give them the options well in advance of a crisis and > then let the crisis happen. You can even warn them along the > way if you want. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 12:12 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > I am finally getting management to make some decisions. But > they have a habit of putting things off until we are in a > crisis situation. I hate to have to wait until all hell > breaks loose and then both management AND the users are > throwing a fit. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 3:06 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > Like the other Ed is telling you, it shouldn't be your job to make > > their business decisions. You explain the ramifications of > having no > > quotas currently, what it will mean in the future, and the costs to > > change things. That is, you present options to management. > > > > You should be positioning your job as a service provider, a > helper. > > Do your best to leave the policeman role to those best equipped to > > handle it, i.e., management. Your customers, the users, > will love you > > more in the morning that way. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > James Liddil > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:27 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > > And the whole idea is that as a support shop, your job is > > to support. > > > Has management told you to put limits? When the email or > > file system > > > was presented to them, did you say that there were going to > > be limits. > > > > No. But I had no idea things would get the way they have. > I do have > > mailbox management set to delete mail from the "deleted > items" every > > seven days. Looking at the recent run shows a few users who > had over > > 10 megs of stuff in there. So users need more training. > Easier said > > than done. So I had a discussion with the CFO about this. His > > analogy is that never emptying the trash is like letting junk mail > > build up on your table until it breaks. Do people do this? And if > > they want to then the decision will be made to not spend the > > money on raises but on more computer hardware/software. > > > > > > > > > > Your job is to keep people from doing really stupid (not what you > > > think is stupid, I mean really stupid) things that impact > > IT and then > > > to respond to, or be proactive in creating solutions to business > > > problems. You have presented no cases that justify any > > limits. You've > > > actually presented some pretty good cases for not having > > limits. Your > > > company is small, probably to get away from the large > > staffs and stay > > > innovative. This means that you really shouldn't be stifling > > > innovation, don't get in people's way, HELP them do their > > > job. If you see something that they are doing and there is a > > > better way, help them learn a better way. If they need to > > > store 2 GB in the mail server, let them. If they are keeping > > > a backup of their disk, then advise them that there are > > > better ways, but more importantly, make those better ways > > > available and very easy for them to use. > > > > In a perfect world. I only wish I had the time, resources > > and energy to do what you say. You are right that we want to > > stay innovative, but let me tell you that there is as much > > stagnation as in a big company. I am a scientist > > (pharmacologist) by training and spent many years doing drug > > development research. Now I am a computer geek and I > > understand the importance of computers as a tool for doing > > research. I have been on both sides and still am. But > > computers like any scientific instrument require a certain > > amount of maintenance etc. Too often users feel computers > > are not like other tools and need no maintenance/tuning. As > > much as I try to make a case to management to pay for more > > training, tools etc. they decide to spend money on other > > things, even though we are a bioinformatics driven business. > > So I have to do things th
RE: Unlimited Quotas
But then they talk about how the IT guy is a dick etc. Already had that happen. > -Original Message- > From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 9:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > And then when the users come yelling, just point the finger > to the direction where blame goes. It's rather amazing how > people won't go complaining to a CEO or other decision maker > level person. > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Monday, July 08, 2002 3:14 PM > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > Conversation: Unlimited Quotas > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > It is possible that your best option is to do as I suggest > and give them the options well in advance of a crisis and > then let the crisis happen. You can even warn them along the > way if you want. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 12:12 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > I am finally getting management to make some decisions. But > they have a habit of putting things off until we are in a > crisis situation. I hate to have to wait until all hell > breaks loose and then both management AND the users are > throwing a fit. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 3:06 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > Like the other Ed is telling you, it shouldn't be your job to make > > their business decisions. You explain the ramifications of > having no > > quotas currently, what it will mean in the future, and the costs to > > change things. That is, you present options to management. > > > > You should be positioning your job as a service provider, a helper. > > Do your best to leave the policeman role to those best equipped to > > handle it, i.e., management. Your customers, the users, > will love you > > > more in the morning that way. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > James Liddil > > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:27 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > > And the whole idea is that as a support shop, your job is > > to support. > > > Has management told you to put limits? When the email or > > file system > > > was presented to them, did you say that there were going to > > be limits. > > > > No. But I had no idea things would get the way they have. > I do have > > mailbox management set to delete mail from the "deleted > items" every > > seven days. Looking at the recent run shows a few users who > had over > > 10 megs of stuff in there. So users need more training. > Easier said > > than done. So I had a discussion with the CFO about this. His > > analogy is that never emptying the trash is like letting junk mail > > build up on your table until it breaks. Do people do this? And if > > they want to then the decision will be made to not spend the > > money on raises but on more computer hardware/software. > > > > > > > > > > Your job is to keep people from doing really stupid (not what you > > > think is stupid, I mean really stupid) things that impact > > IT and then > > > to respond to, or be proactive in creating solutions to business > > > problems. You have presented no cases that justify any > > limits. You've > > > actually presented some pretty good cases for not having > > limits. Your > > > company is small, probably to get away from the large > > staffs and stay > > > innovative. This means that you really shouldn't be stifling > > > innovation, don't get in people's way, HELP them do their job. If > > > you see something that they are doing and there is a better way, > > > help them learn a better way. If they need to store 2 GB > in the mail > > > server, let them. If they are keeping a backup of their > disk, then > > > advise them that there are better ways, but more > importantly, make > > > those better ways available and very easy for them to use. > > > > In a perfect world. I only wish I had the time, resources > and energy > > to do what you say. You are right that we want to stay innovative, > > but let me tell you that there is as much stagnation as in a big > > company. I am a scientist > > (pharmacologist) by training and spent many years doing drug > > development research. Now I am a computer geek and I > > understand the importance of computers as a tool for doing > > research.