Re: ScanMail missing tricks?
Yeah, but I am running in AVAPI mode and the scan engine and pattern file are current. It's getting some Bugbears but not others. Tim Subject: Re: ScanMail missing tricks? From: "Ray Beckwith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:13:31 -0700 X-Message-Number: 17 We had this issue a while back when we first started using ScanMail. We found out from Trend that when ScanMail runs in MAPI mode, it doesn't scan the attachments until AFTER the message is in the inbox; which leaves the possibility if the server is extremely busy scanning, the user could see and even open the message before the scanner gets to it. The solution was to run ScanMail in AVAPI mode instead. This mode intercepts attachments before they reach the IS. Just be sure you have upgraded to the latest version of ScanMail and the latest Exchange SP first as there have been issues with AVAPI mode in earlier versions crashing the IS. Check the list archives for this topic. I know it was discussed here a couple years ago. Good Luck. Ray _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Without going directly into the OST/PST discussion I would suggest to look at the new Outlook 11 coming up on the horizon. A lot of new features have to do with slow links. ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: "Neil Doody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FW: Outlook prob removing old account
Hi, Exch 2k sp3 outlook 2k As per Ed's 'never restore' method, I have set up mailbox retention on my departing users. I gave permission to the admin account to access a users mailbox who has departed in order to check any emails. I have since deleted the mailbox and account within AD however I still have the mailbox showing under folder list for the admin account. I have removed it from the admin account properties > advanced tab under outlook so I am not sure why it would still be there. Has anyone got any ideas a) why it still may be there b) how to remove it from there? I'm thinking either stop/ start IS or recreate account/ mailbox. Google/ Technet didn't throw up anything I could find but then that may be my search criteria. Thanks Rob Support Analyst TKC Group Ltd Unit 5 Ashmead Ind Est Keynsham BS31 1TZ UK 0117 916 1320 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS
Both your DCs are GCs. Good for exchange but one of the FSMO roles (the Infrastructure Master) does not want to be on a GC. It doesn't update if it is run on a GC. Not sure if this applies in a single domain too. Q1971322: NOTE: The Infrastructure Master (IM) role should be held by a domain controller that is not a Global Catalog server(GC). If the Infrastructure Master runs on a Global Catalog server it will stop updating object information because it does not contain any references to objects that it does not hold. This is because a Global Catalog server holds a partial replica of every object in the forest. As a result, cross-domain object references in that domain will not be updated and a warning to that effect will be logged on that DC's event log. Sander -Original Message- From: Pham, Tuan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 June 2003 05:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RUS I have 2 W2K DCs and they're both are GC server. Right now there are two RUS, one is the enterprise point to DC1 and one is the organization also point to DC1. Technically, I can create another RUS and point it to DC2 so the GAL gets update as well , but I read somewhere that all I have to do is change the Enterprise RUS to DC1 and the Org RUS to DC2. Is that true? Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Best Practices for Exchange2K Implementation
Hi all, We are a small company but spread out offices all around. I wonder what would be a justified number of users (mailboxes) to host a exchange server (Exchange 2K-SP3 ) in a remote office. Does anyone use MAPI client over internet to connect to exchange server ? Are there any recommended settings in Outlook (Outlook-2000) to minimize the network traffic (specially for those who are on dial-up internet access) ? I would really appreciate any feedback in this regard. Thank you in anticipation, Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: additional display name?
We traditionally change the user to the married name (at their request, of course) then add in parenthesis their maiden name: Paula Jones (Smith) Tends to work well. The only way to do what you want would be to create a second mailbox and set the main mailbox as an alternate recipient. That's pretty kludgy to me. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: additional display name? > > > Does anyone know of a way to have both a maiden name and > married name appear as distinct display names in the OAB, yet > have them both point to the same account? > > E2ksp3 > > Thanks, > Gordon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___NOTICE_ > This electronic mail transmission contains confidential > information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, > distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is > strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in > error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then > destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other > information in this message that do not relate to the > official business of Bain & Company shall be understood to be > neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to > Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is > subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client > contract. ___ > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Archiving Solutions
And a new employee? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:17 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Archiving Solutions > > > KVS has a very mature product ... > > ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts > dealing with Exchange 2003 ** > -- > Martin Tuip > MVP Exchange > Exchange 2000 List owner > www.exchange-mail.org > www.sharepointserver.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > > - Original Message - > From: "Carmila Fresco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:02 PM > Subject: Archiving Solutions > > > Does anyone have any experience with archiving solutions like > veritas storage migrator for exchange? > > We currently do not impose hard limits on our users due to a > lot of regulations that we need to comply with. We have > users who have mailboxes close to 3GB. On one exchange > server that has 180 users, the total size of the store is > already at a 110GB. > > I'm interested to know what solutions you have in place to > keep down the size of user's mailboxes. > > Thanks, > Carmila > > > > > This email message may contain information that is > confidential and proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third > party. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact > the sender and destroy the original and any copies of the > original message. Babcock & Brown takes measures to protect > the content of its communications. However, Babcock & Brown > cannot guarantee that email messages will not be intercepted > by third parties or that email messages will be free of > errors or viruses. > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > getting backed up. > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > my wages for a larger link ;p > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > completely kills the network when you have a few people > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > on working with synchronise folders within a working > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > solution. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Virus Notifications to Sender?
Off topic. With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender we are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the sender notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did not actually send any virus. I know we can turn off the notification, but then users who are sending viruses will not get notified that they are infected. Kind of a catch 22. I'm curious what other administrators policies are regarding notification messages to the sender. Have you disabled sender notifications or are you just living with it? Pete Pfefferkorn Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Street Cincinnati, OH 45221 Phone - (513) 556-9076 Fax - (513) 556-2042 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
how can a 256meg pipe be bad? - Original Message - From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that > PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that > conversion is done on the client side. > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a > 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially > the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > > getting backed up. > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > > my wages for a larger link ;p > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > > completely kills the network when you have a few people > > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > > on working with synchronise folders within a working > > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > > solution. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > getting backed up. > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > my wages for a larger link ;p > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > completely kills the network when you have a few people > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > on working with synchronise folders within a working > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > solution. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
I leave them on - it's a good indication someone is hijacking their mail accounts. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > > > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof > the sender we are starting to get complaints from users who > are receiving the sender notifications messages from our > ScanMail virus scanner who did not actually send any virus. > I know we can turn off the notification, but then users who > are sending viruses will not get notified that they are > infected. Kind of a catch 22. I'm curious what other > administrators policies are regarding notification messages > to the sender. Have you disabled sender notifications or are > you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
a couple of p2p servers;) - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 08:08 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > getting backed up. > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > my wages for a larger link ;p > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > completely kills the network when you have a few people > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > on working with synchronise folders within a working > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > solution. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Lol, yeah, even if it was a 256KB pipe, that's still 2048kbit, 2mb pipes up and down the country, don't think I could give a toss about offline folders ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 13:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > getting backed up. > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > my wages for a larger link ;p > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > completely kills the network when you have a few people > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > on working with synchronise folders within a working > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > solution. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal applications, and 256k disappears quickly. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > how can a 256meg pipe be bad? > - Original Message - > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in > > mind > that > > PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), > but I think > that > > conversion is done on the client side. > > > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong > > end of > a > > 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, > especially > > the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the > entire Exchange > > > strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that > strategy > > > includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item > Retention, this > > > highlights the issue that most of the people round here have > > > Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that > > > there is no way they are getting backed up. > > > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > only a 64k > > > ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can > > > scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of > > > users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a > larger link > > > ;p > > > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > Mail Box > > > is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is > > > Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the > > > solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > you would > > > think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. > However, a > > > colleague informs me that it completely kills the network > when you > > > have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your > average Personal > > > Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > using offline > > > folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed > that when > > > you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically > > > synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on > > > working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No > > > matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know > > > exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > ext_mode=&lang=english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
The end that's got the Exchange box ;) -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? > :) > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. > Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message > stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the > wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other > traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly > stingy with network traffic. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > > getting backed up. > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > > my wages for a larger link ;p > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > > completely kills the network when you have a few people > > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > > on working with synchronise folders within a working > > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > > solution. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Try 6MB ATM[1], which is the current standard for our larger office connectivity. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] Actually, its 3MB CIR with a 6MB port speed. > -Original Message- > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Lol, yeah, even if it was a 256KB pipe, that's still > 2048kbit, 2mb pipes up and down the country, don't think I > could give a toss about offline folders ;) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 13:09 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? > :) > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. > Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message > stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the > wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other > traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly > stingy with network traffic. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire > > Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of > > that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with > > Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the > > people round here have Personal Folders containing there > > email, which in turn means that there is no way they are > > getting backed up. > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > > only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > > Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for > > such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of > > my wages for a larger link ;p > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > > Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess > > is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect > > the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > > you would think they were the ideal candidate for this > > situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > > completely kills the network when you have a few people > > synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average > > Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > > using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im > > also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail > > box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info > > on working with synchronise folders within a working > > enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, > > I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this > > solution. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=& lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
Agreed. Leave em on. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions I leave them on - it's a good indication someone is hijacking their mail accounts. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > > > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender > we are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the > sender notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did > not actually send any virus. > I know we can turn off the notification, but then users who are > sending viruses will not get notified that they are infected. Kind of > a catch 22. I'm curious what other administrators policies are > regarding notification messages to the sender. Have you disabled > sender notifications or are you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
We leave them off. The majority of today's virus' and Trojans are not from who they say they are. If we see one that is legitimate on the From address we will send a note separately. Notifying the sender when they weren't the sender doesn't really help them know their email was hijacked. They can't use the notice to track down who really sent it so it usually just agitates the person. We do leave admin notification on though. It is also nice for not email bombing a list someone might subscribe to, such as a security list where people send sample code that is often identified by most scanners as an active code. Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 08:19 To: Exchange Discussions I leave them on - it's a good indication someone is hijacking their mail accounts. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > > > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof > the sender we are starting to get complaints from users who > are receiving the sender notifications messages from our > ScanMail virus scanner who did not actually send any virus. > I know we can turn off the notification, but then users who > are sending viruses will not get notified that they are > infected. Kind of a catch 22. I'm curious what other > administrators policies are regarding notification messages > to the sender. Have you disabled sender notifications or are > you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Change FQDN in Ex55
I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here: "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. Is there any way to change this? Thanks -Dave Vantine _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. Sander -Original Message- From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here: "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. Is there any way to change this? Thanks -Dave Vantine _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Best Practices for Exchange2K Implementation
I'd suggest using a network to network VPN for the small offices - we do it with Cisco PIX 506 firewalls, but most of our "small offices" are 25-40 people. Many of the $300-500 SOHO firewalls, and some of the even less expensive ones, suppor that kind of functionality. That also gives you a lot more control for supporting the offices. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:27 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Best Practices for Exchange2K Implementation > > > Hi all, > > We are a small company but spread out offices all around. > > I wonder what would be a justified number of users > (mailboxes) to host a exchange server (Exchange 2K-SP3 ) in > a remote office. Does anyone use MAPI client over internet to > connect to exchange server ? Are there any recommended > settings in Outlook (Outlook-2000) to minimize the network > traffic (specially for those who are on dial-up internet access) ? > > I would really appreciate any feedback in this regard. > > Thank you in anticipation, > > Kishore > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Recovery Help. Request made from a new Exchange Admin.
The fact that you're asking for help on an incredibly well documented process that has also been beaten to death over the 7-8 years of this lists existance probably garnered you a response you weren't happy with. There's this really cool document called "The Exchange 5.5 Disaster Recovery Whitepaper, Version 3" which is freely downloadable from Microsoft's web site. Have you even read that? IIRC, you also wanted to do a restore using Backup Exec from a tape created by ArcServe. That can't be done, they're completely different tape formats. You're going to need to get a copy of ArkenServer and use that. Its also possible that CA's new product, Brightstor[1], won't be able to recover the tapes. Your best bet might be to contact some data recovery services to see what options they provide. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] CA follows the adage that once they've out of good will in the marketplace with a product, they'll just rename the product and sell it to a whole new set of unsuspecting dupes > -Original Message- > From: labigdawrg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 8:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovery Help. Request made from a new Exchange Admin. > > > Thank you to Samantha for the kind words and to the "warm" > welcome from the guy whose knowledge on the subject resulted > in no help at all. > > I specifically asked within my post if what my thought > process at the time was logical and could result in a > solution or should I build another Exchange server. If you > read the first part of the message, I clearly stated that it > was my second day on the job. > > I understand that a DR environment is necessary but was not > available and to give a little more information I was not > looking for anyone to do my job but rather some direction > since the 2yr data that needed to be retrieved was for > litigation purposes and should have been done weeks earlier > prior to my new responsibility. Add to that that there is no > DR environment and that the email backups take place on a > remote server that is not running Exchange then maybe you can > see my dilemma. But I thought at the time that I did not need > to include all of this because I did not care to waste anyone's time. > > I may have experience in an area where one day you may need > assistance and just a note to let you know that I will assist > to a degree if I can but I will not waste your time with such > comments as the ones you gave. I am not upset about it but > rather request that if you want to respond to a post then how > about trying to help rather than possibly waste the author's > time as well with hollow words? > > LABD > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the Exchange Server. -Original Message- From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. Sander -Original Message- From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here: "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. Is there any way to change this? Thanks -Dave Vantine _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange and OWA setup
Hi Guys, I wonder if you can advise me on this set up i'm planning for a 15 user company. Existing setup: One server with a broadband connection (512k) running NT4/Exchange 5.5/Winroute proxy and is multihomed for the broadband connection. Currently its used for around 15 connections for Exchange and general file and print aswell as Internet access. 5 VPN connections are also hosted. They now have asked if i can set up OWA for them. I'm reluctant to set up OWA on the existing server as its this machine that's open and i have suggested moving Exchange off this box and on to another server, which i will then put OWA up and other services such as FTP. I will use Win2000 server, as its time to also upgrade the OS. I will then continue to use Exchange 5.5 Questions: What do u think? Are there any issues i should be aware off with say routing? Thnks David CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us by e-mail or by telephone (020 7770 7000) and then delete the e-mail and any copies of it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RUS problems
Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RUS
The exception is if *all* the DCs are GCs, even in the case of a multi-domain forest, the IM can be on any of them. - Original Message - From: "Sander Van Butzelaar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:28 AM Subject: RE: RUS Both your DCs are GCs. Good for exchange but one of the FSMO roles (the Infrastructure Master) does not want to be on a GC. It doesn't update if it is run on a GC. Not sure if this applies in a single domain too. Q1971322: NOTE: The Infrastructure Master (IM) role should be held by a domain controller that is not a Global Catalog server(GC). If the Infrastructure Master runs on a Global Catalog server it will stop updating object information because it does not contain any references to objects that it does not hold. This is because a Global Catalog server holds a partial replica of every object in the forest. As a result, cross-domain object references in that domain will not be updated and a warning to that effect will be logged on that DC's event log. Sander -Original Message- From: Pham, Tuan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 06 June 2003 05:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RUS I have 2 W2K DCs and they're both are GC server. Right now there are two RUS, one is the enterprise point to DC1 and one is the organization also point to DC1. Technically, I can create another RUS and point it to DC2 so the GAL gets update as well , but I read somewhere that all I have to do is change the Enterprise RUS to DC1 and the Org RUS to DC2. Is that true? Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Change FQDN in Ex55
IMO, Use a real dot com domain name for your internal network, not a .loc! - Original Message - From: "Dave Vantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:12 AM Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of > our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I > have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here: > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have > reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to > change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to > find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every > attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to > be applicable. > > Is there any way to change this? > > Thanks > -Dave Vantine > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Virus Notifications to Sender?
Live with it. - Original Message - From: "Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender we > are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the sender > notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did not actually > send any virus. I know we can turn off the notification, but then users who > are sending viruses will not get notified that they are infected. Kind of a > catch 22. I'm curious what other administrators policies are regarding > notification messages to the sender. Have you disabled sender notifications > or are you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outlook prob removing old account
Recreate the Outlook profile? - Original Message - From: "Rob Hackney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:24 AM Subject: FW: Outlook prob removing old account Hi, Exch 2k sp3 outlook 2k As per Ed's 'never restore' method, I have set up mailbox retention on my departing users. I gave permission to the admin account to access a users mailbox who has departed in order to check any emails. I have since deleted the mailbox and account within AD however I still have the mailbox showing under folder list for the admin account. I have removed it from the admin account properties > advanced tab under outlook so I am not sure why it would still be there. Has anyone got any ideas a) why it still may be there b) how to remove it from there? I'm thinking either stop/ start IS or recreate account/ mailbox. Google/ Technet didn't throw up anything I could find but then that may be my search criteria. Thanks Rob Support Analyst TKC Group Ltd Unit 5 Ashmead Ind Est Keynsham BS31 1TZ UK 0117 916 1320 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Yep. Once they fix some of the bugs, Outlook 11 is the ticket. - Original Message - From: "Martin Tuip [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > Without going directly into the OST/PST discussion I would suggest to look > at the new Outlook 11 coming up on the horizon. A lot of new features have > to do with slow links. > > ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with > Exchange 2003 ** > -- > Martin Tuip > MVP Exchange > Exchange 2000 List owner > www.exchange-mail.org > www.sharepointserver.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > > - Original Message - > From: "Neil Doody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:34 AM > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange > strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy > includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this > highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal > Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way > they are getting backed up. > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k > ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can > scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, > but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is > out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. > Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small > test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal > candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising > folders over an 64k link. > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal > Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline > folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you > make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised > with the server? > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working > with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how > irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im > in for if I move to this solution. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal network. -Original Message- From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the Exchange Server. -Original Message- From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. Sander -Original Message- From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here: "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. Is there any way to change this? Thanks -Dave Vantine _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then! In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 link back to the main Exch Server and rarely had issues. And we were passing cad files around all day! - Original Message - From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the > application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of > bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data > center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal > applications, and 256k disappears quickly. > > > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > how can a 256meg pipe be bad? > > - Original Message - > > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 > > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in > > > mind > > that > > > PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), > > but I think > > that > > > conversion is done on the client side. > > > > > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong > > > end of > > a > > > 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, > > especially > > > the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the > > entire Exchange > > > > strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that > > strategy > > > > includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item > > Retention, this > > > > highlights the issue that most of the people round here have > > > > Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that > > > > there is no way they are getting backed up. > > > > > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > > only a 64k > > > > ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can > > > > scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of > > > > users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a > > larger link > > > > ;p > > > > > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > > Mail Box > > > > is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is > > > > Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the > > > > solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > > you would > > > > think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. > > However, a > > > > colleague informs me that it completely kills the network > > when you > > > > have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your > > average Personal > > > > Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > > using offline > > > > folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed > > that when > > > > you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically > > > > synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on > > > > working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No > > > > matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know > > > > exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. > > > > > > > > _ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Web Interface: > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > > ext_mode=&lang=english > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and spoofing your address. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal network. -Original Message- From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the Exchange Server. -Original Message- From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. Sander -Original Message- From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here: "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. Is there any way to change this? Thanks -Dave Vantine _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > spoofing your address. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal network. > > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. It > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the Exchange > Server. > > -Original Message- > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > outgoing mail. > > Sander > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of > our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I > have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > here: > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have > reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to > change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to > find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every > attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to > be applicable. > > Is there any way to change this? > > Thanks > -Dave Vantine > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; > lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- -- > -- > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > confidential > information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it > is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, > please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone > (212)935-4990, > fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. > Thank > you. > > > == > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List pos
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
God damn, don't talk to me about CAD files. Were a construction company :o Random User : "Hello the system is Slow" Me : "Is anyone receiving any emails?" Random User : "No" Me : "Have you checked with the drawing department?" And when its over a 64k ISDN line, it doesn't work to well, roll on outlook 11 by the sounds of things. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 13:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then! In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 link back to the main Exch Server and rarely had issues. And we were passing cad files around all day! - Original Message - From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the > application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of > bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data > center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal > applications, and 256k disappears quickly. > > > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > how can a 256meg pipe be bad? > > - Original Message - > > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 > > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in > > > mind > > that > > > PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), > > but I think > > that > > > conversion is done on the client side. > > > > > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong > > > end of > > a > > > 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, > > especially > > > the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the > > entire Exchange > > > > strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that > > strategy > > > > includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item > > Retention, this > > > > highlights the issue that most of the people round here have > > > > Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that > > > > there is no way they are getting backed up. > > > > > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > > only a 64k > > > > ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can > > > > scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of > > > > users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a > > larger link > > > > ;p > > > > > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > > Mail Box > > > > is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is > > > > Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the > > > > solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > > you would > > > > think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. > > However, a > > > > colleague informs me that it completely kills the network > > when you > > > > have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your > > average Personal > > > > Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > > using offline > > > > folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed > > that when > > > > you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically > > > > synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on > > > > working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No > > > > matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know > > > > exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. > > > > > > > > _ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Web Interface: > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > > ext_mode=&lang=english > > > To unsubscribe: m
RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > spoofing your address. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal network. > > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. It > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the Exchange > Server. > > -Original Message- > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > outgoing mail. > > Sander > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of > our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I > have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > here: > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have > reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to > change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to > find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every > attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to > be applicable. > > Is there any way to change this? > > Thanks > -Dave Vantine > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; > lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- -- > -- > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > confidential > information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it > is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this > message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, > please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone > (212)935-4990, > fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. > Thank > you. > > > == > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/e
RE: RUS problems
Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.silversands.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Best practices recommend otherwise: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet authority in the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be globally unique. If another organization later registers the same DNS domain name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is acquired by other company that uses the same DNS names then the two infrastructures can never interact with one another." - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > > spoofing your address. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal > network. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. > It > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > Exchange > > Server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > > outgoing mail. > > > > Sander > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance > of > > our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. > I > > have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > > here: > > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have > > reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way > to > > change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to > > find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every > > attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to > > be applicable. > > > > Is there any way to change this? > > > > Thanks > > -Dave Vantine > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; > > lang=english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > > =english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > > =english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > -- > > -- > > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > > confidential > >
RE: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
I am not AD yet so I am only somewhat familiar with what you referenced. I conceide your point though. I accept my public flogging with only no regrets. I was under the wrong understanding that if you setup an internal DNS that was not Fully Qualified it would not be able to be spoofed externally and thus my internal email server would not be able to be some lonely kids relay toy or spam generator. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 Best practices recommend otherwise: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet authority in the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be globally unique. If another organization later registers the same DNS domain name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is acquired by other company that uses the same DNS names then the two infrastructures can never interact with one another." - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > > spoofing your address. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal > network. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. > It > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > Exchange > > Server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > > outgoing mail. > > > > Sander > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance > of > > our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. > I > > have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > > here: > > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have > > reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way > to > > change this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was unable to > > find any reference for this. I have also looked at just about every > > attribute within the Ex5.5 objects especially the IMS but nothing seems to > > be applicable. > > > > Is there any way to change this? > > > > Thanks > > -Dave Vantine > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; > > lang=english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > >
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
What are the odds? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Best practices recommend otherwise: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet authority in the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be globally unique. If another organization later registers the same DNS domain name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is acquired by other company that uses the same DNS names then the two infrastructures can never interact with one another." - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > > spoofing your address. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal > network. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. > It > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > Exchange > > Server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > > outgoing mail. > > > > Sander > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm stuck. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.silversands.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PRO
RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
100:1? (we all know how often they happen) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 15:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 What are the odds? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Best practices recommend otherwise: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet authority in the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be globally unique. If another organization later registers the same DNS domain name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is acquired by other company that uses the same DNS names then the two infrastructures can never interact with one another." - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > > spoofing your address. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal > network. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. > It > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > Exchange > > Server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > > outgoing mail. > > > > Sander > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
I'll put $100.00 on domain.loc - Original Message - From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:49 AM Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 What are the odds? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Best practices recommend otherwise: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet authority in the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be globally unique. If another organization later registers the same DNS domain name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is acquired by other company that uses the same DNS names then the two infrastructures can never interact with one another." - Original Message - From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and > > spoofing your address. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal > network. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. > It > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > Exchange > > Server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only .loc? > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to .com on > > outgoing mail. > > > > Sander > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Can I buy a vowel? > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I'll put $100.00 on domain.loc > > - Original Message - > From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:49 AM > Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM > (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What are the odds? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Best practices recommend otherwise: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec > hnet/prodtechn > ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp > > "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet > authority in > the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are > guaranteed to be > globally unique. If another organization later registers the > same DNS domain > name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is > acquired by other > company that uses the same DNS names then the two > infrastructures can never > interact with one another." > > > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** > RE: Change FQDN > in Ex55 > > > > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your > email domain and > > > spoofing your address. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > generally, most > > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for > your internal > > network. > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our > current addressing > is > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that > Exchange is writing. > > It > > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > > Exchange > > > Server. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email > address, or only > .loc? > > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite > your .loc to .com > on > > > outgoing mail. > > > > > > Sander > > > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
- Original Message - From: "Erik Sojka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 Can I buy a vowel? > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I'll put $100.00 on domain.loc > > - Original Message - > From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:49 AM > Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM > (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > What are the odds? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > Best practices recommend otherwise: > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec > hnet/prodtechn > ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp > > "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet > authority in > the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are > guaranteed to be > globally unique. If another organization later registers the > same DNS domain > name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is > acquired by other > company that uses the same DNS names then the two > infrastructures can never > interact with one another." > > > > - Original Message - > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** > RE: Change FQDN > in Ex55 > > > > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your > email domain and > > > spoofing your address. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > generally, most > > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for > your internal > > network. > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our > current addressing > is > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that > Exchange is writing. > > It > > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the > > Exchange > > > Server. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email > address, or only > .loc? > > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite > your .loc to .com > on > > > outgoing mail. > > > > > > Sander > > > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Good morning, Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!! Have a great week. Mike Mitchell Systems email Administrator Alverno Information Services * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *:(317) 783-9341 EXT. 6211 "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away." _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant service on your E2k box? Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:41 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm stuck. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.silversands.co.uk ___
RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Hmmm. I have some money left over. Can I get that ceramic dalmatian for $50? > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Erik Sojka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM > Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM > (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > Can I buy a vowel? > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I'll put $100.00 on domain.loc > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:49 AM > > Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** > RE: ** SPAM > > (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > What are the odds? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Best practices recommend otherwise: > > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/tec > > hnet/prodtechn > > ol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp > > > > "As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet > > authority in > > the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are > > guaranteed to be > > globally unique. If another organization later registers the > > same DNS domain > > name, or if your organization merges with, acquires, or is > > acquired by other > > company that uses the same DNS names then the two > > infrastructures can never > > interact with one another." > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:19 AM > > Subject: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** > > RE: Change FQDN > > in Ex55 > > > > > > > They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name? > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "David McSpadden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM > > > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your > > email domain and > > > > spoofing your address. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Andy David > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > > generally, most > > > > recommendations now are to use a real domain name for > > your internal > > > network. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our > > current addressing > > is > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that > > Exchange is writing. > > > It > > > > is now writing this based upon the internal DNS > information on the > > > Exchange > > > > Server. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email > > address, or only > > .loc? > > > > One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite > > your .loc to .com > > on > > > > outgoing mail. > > > > > > > > Sander > > > > > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > ext_mode=&lang=english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
RE: RUS problems
Nope Not yet. I am going to reboot tonight. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant service on your E2k box? Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:41 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm stuck. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Supp
Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
This isnt enough? http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/ti/ex2003intro.asp - Original Message - From: "Mitchell Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:52 AM Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I > want > to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are > currently > on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!! > > Have a great week. > > Mike Mitchell > Systems email Administrator > Alverno Information Services > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *:(317) 783-9341 EXT. 6211 > > "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments > that take our breath away." > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Good point , what is the business case for email now? -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Good morning, Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!! Have a great week. Mike Mitchell Systems email Administrator Alverno Information Services * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *:(317) 783-9341 EXT. 6211 "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away." _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This correspondence is confidential and is solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this correspondence from your system and notify the sender immediately. No warranty is given that this correspondence is free from any virus. In keeping with good computer practice, you should ensure that it is actually virus free. E-mail messages may be subject to delays, non-delivery and unauthorised alterations therefore, information expressed in this message is not given or endorsed by Sx3 unless otherwise notified by our duly authorised representative independent of this message. Sx3 is a trading name of Service and Systems Solutions Limited, a limited company registered in Northern Ireland under number NI 32979 whose registered office is at 120 Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 5HT. ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Exchange won't be the expensive bit - AD will. :) -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Good morning, Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!! Have a great week. Mike Mitchell Systems email Administrator Alverno Information Services * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *:(317) 783-9341 EXT. 6211 "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away." _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
The last I heard, mainstream support for 5.5 ends on Dec 31st 2003, so that may be a good enough reason. You should have stuck with MSMail - no need for that expensive Exchange rubbish! :-) Neil -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:52 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Good morning, Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!! Have a great week. Mike Mitchell Systems email Administrator Alverno Information Services * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *:(317) 783-9341 EXT. 6211 "Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take but by the moments that take our breath away." _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.silversands.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
> > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
great reply -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
"Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the "benefits" of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the ability to download your mailbox to your desktop. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know > why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. > I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. > Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange?
Is it possible? If so how? I have a list of contacts from an affiliated company's Exchange server in Excal format and I need to import it. Any idea how? Thanks Greg _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help...exchange down
I have a 5.5 server whos drive c is toast. Tried getting it to boot, tried a repair but it looks like the controller is the culprit. The server is running NT 4.0 with sp 6a. I have tried reviving the server but no luck. I have a full backup of exchange and I need to get this restored onto a new server. The problem is that when I try to install exchange to the new server (which now has the name and IP of the old server) the install tells me that the server already exists in the site (attempted joining the existing site) OF COURSE! Anyway are there any suggestions on getting the old server exchange backup restored to the new server? Thanks Loads! Warren _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Help...exchange down
Have tried deleting the computer account then trying joining the domain? - Matt > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Warren Mr DAC 5 SIG CMD > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Help...exchange down > > > I have a 5.5 server whos drive c is toast. Tried getting it > to boot, tried a > repair but it looks like the controller is the culprit. The server is > running NT 4.0 with sp 6a. > > I have tried reviving the server but no luck. I have a full backup of > exchange and I need to get this restored onto a new server. > The problem is > that when I try to install exchange to the new server (which > now has the > name and IP of the old server) the install tells me that the > server already > exists in the site (attempted joining the existing site) OF > COURSE! Anyway > are there any suggestions on getting the old server exchange > backup restored > to the new server? > > Thanks Loads! > > Warren > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Help...exchange down
I can get the new server joined to the domain with the old servers name and IP. -Original Message- From: Bailey, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Help...exchange down Have tried deleting the computer account then trying joining the domain? - Matt > -Original Message- > From: Bennett, Warren Mr DAC 5 SIG CMD > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Help...exchange down > > > I have a 5.5 server whos drive c is toast. Tried getting it > to boot, tried a > repair but it looks like the controller is the culprit. The server is > running NT 4.0 with sp 6a. > > I have tried reviving the server but no luck. I have a full backup of > exchange and I need to get this restored onto a new server. > The problem is > that when I try to install exchange to the new server (which > now has the > name and IP of the old server) the install tells me that the > server already > exists in the site (attempted joining the existing site) OF > COURSE! Anyway > are there any suggestions on getting the old server exchange > backup restored > to the new server? > > Thanks Loads! > > Warren > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
- AVAPI 2.5. It allows the AV vendors to actually delete messages containing viruses or matching the spam filters, if enabled, rather than just modifying the content/attachments. It also allows for stamping of a spam confidence level on messages so that users can choose how spammy they want their mailboxes to be using client software (would likely come from the same 3rd party virus vendor). - More transport queue exposure Allows for better troubleshooting. - Vastly improved management of public folders through ESM - Support for Windows 2003 AD features - Better bytes over the wire performance for LAN connected users - Vastly improved OWA including spellcheck, attachment filtering and junk mail rules - More management capabilities exposed through WMI (like being able to generate mailbox size reports with a script) - Ability to use public or private RBLs - Lots and lots of stability improvements over Exchange 2000. I don't know that any of these are compelling for you, but those are some of the interesting things for me. Remember that this is very much like Exchange 5.5 was to Exchange 5.0. Nothing earth shattering, but nobody still wants to be running on 5.0. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:25 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the "benefits" of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the ability to download your mailbox to your desktop. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know > why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. > I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. > Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com
GFI MailEssentials
All, Part of our company is interested in using this product. I would appreciate hearing some opinions of the product- particularly the spam portion. Thanks. Ken Jasa Messaging Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Show them the OWA for 2k3 and they'll, um, er, like it. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:09 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > > I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. > > Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, > as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that > is just fine for everyone; or so they say. > > I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least > a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) > > > > Bob Sadler > City of Leawood, KS, USA > WAN/Internet Specialist > 913-339-6700 x194 > > > -Original Message- > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Good morning, > > > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team > wants to know > > why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. > > I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. > > > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. > > Help!!! > > What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy > enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in > future (not so easy)? > > How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do > you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites > with relatively slow links? > > Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so > then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user > directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange > would enable this. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=& lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
You don't want to know what they're doing. And its not pr0n, either.[1] -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] Not anymore. He was let go a few years ago. > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:24 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then! > In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 > link back to the main Exch Server and rarely had issues. And > we were passing cad files around all day! > > - Original Message - > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the > > application, and the applications one of these offices > support uses a > > lot > of > > bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our > production data > > center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal > > applications, and 256k disappears quickly. > > > > > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > > > how can a 256meg pipe be bad? > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 > > > Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > > > > Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% > sure. Keep in > > > > mind > > > that > > > > PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), > > > but I think > > > that > > > > conversion is done on the client side. > > > > > > > > I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the > > > > wrong end of > > > a > > > > 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, > > > especially > > > > the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the > > > entire Exchange > > > > > strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that > > > strategy > > > > > includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item > > > Retention, this > > > > > highlights the issue that most of the people round here have > > > > > Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means > > > > > that there is no way they are getting backed up. > > > > > > > > > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have > > > only a 64k > > > > > ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! > Okay you can > > > > > scrutinise me for having such a small link for such > an amount of > > > > > users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a > > > larger link > > > > > ;p > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the > > > Mail Box > > > > > is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is > > > > > Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the > > > > > solution, running a small test over a dial up connection > > > you would > > > > > think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. > > > However, a > > > > > colleague informs me that it completely kills the network > > > when you > > > > > have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. > > > > > > > > > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your > > > average Personal > > > > > Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when > > > using offline > > > > > folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed > > > that when > > > > > you make a new folder in your mail box it is not > automatically > > > > > synchronised with the server? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all > your info on > > > > > working with synchronise folders within a working > enterprise. > > > > > No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I > would like to > > > > > know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. > > > > > > > > > > > __
RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
We've turned them off. I'd guess that 99% of the viruses that we receive have spoofed sender addresses, and I don't see the benefit of hitting all those people with incorrect virus alerts. -Peter -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Virus Notifications to Sender? Live with it. - Original Message - From: "Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender we > are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the sender > notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did not actually > send any virus. I know we can turn off the notification, but then users who > are sending viruses will not get notified that they are infected. Kind of a > catch 22. I'm curious what other administrators policies are regarding > notification messages to the sender. Have you disabled sender notifications > or are you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ 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 Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Yes, but then I have to upgrade to OS 2003 too :) Talk about a full day :) You are right though, there are some very interesting things in that list, and I probably will see what my upgrade cost will be sooner then later :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 - AVAPI 2.5. It allows the AV vendors to actually delete messages containing viruses or matching the spam filters, if enabled, rather than just modifying the content/attachments. It also allows for stamping of a spam confidence level on messages so that users can choose how spammy they want their mailboxes to be using client software (would likely come from the same 3rd party virus vendor). - More transport queue exposure Allows for better troubleshooting. - Vastly improved management of public folders through ESM - Support for Windows 2003 AD features - Better bytes over the wire performance for LAN connected users - Vastly improved OWA including spellcheck, attachment filtering and junk mail rules - More management capabilities exposed through WMI (like being able to generate mailbox size reports with a script) - Ability to use public or private RBLs - Lots and lots of stability improvements over Exchange 2000. I don't know that any of these are compelling for you, but those are some of the interesting things for me. Remember that this is very much like Exchange 5.5 was to Exchange 5.0. Nothing earth shattering, but nobody still wants to be running on 5.0. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:25 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the "benefits" of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the ability to download your mailbox to your desktop. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know > why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. > I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. > Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PR
RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Actually, they actively recommend against non-standard (ie not registerable) domain names now. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > generally, most recommendations now are to use a real domain > name for your internal network. > > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current > addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange > is writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal > DNS information on the Exchange Server. > > -Original Message- > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, > or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could > rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. > > Sander > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to > .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We > are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue > with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > here: > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc > (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's > and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change > this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was > unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at > just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects > especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. > > Is there any way to change this? > > Thanks > -Dave Vantine > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=& lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Anyone with .005 of a brain who can read mail headers can see whether mail is spoofed or not. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: David McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email > domain and spoofing your address. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > generally, most recommendations now are to use a real domain > name for your internal network. > > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current > addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange > is writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal > DNS information on the Exchange Server. > > -Original Message- > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, > or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could > rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. > > Sander > > -Original Message- > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to > .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We > are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue > with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > here: > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc > (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's > and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change > this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was > unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at > just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects > especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. > > Is there any way to change this? > > Thanks > -Dave Vantine > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=& > lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Excha
RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
Yea but what about that 1% that has no clue their sending out viruses? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Durkee, Peter Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender? We've turned them off. I'd guess that 99% of the viruses that we receive have spoofed sender addresses, and I don't see the benefit of hitting all those people with incorrect virus alerts. -Peter -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Virus Notifications to Sender? Live with it. - Original Message - From: "Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender > we are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the > sender notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did > not actually > send any virus. I know we can turn off the notification, but then > users who > are sending viruses will not get notified that they are infected. > Kind of a > catch 22. I'm curious what other administrators policies are > regarding notification messages to the sender. Have you disabled > sender notifications > or are you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ 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 Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
There were issues with the system attendant's detection logic that could potentially result in stuck threads, causing issues such as the RUS not stamping addresses. I don't recall seeing that myself, but a system attenant service cycle is a quick and free sanity check before calling PSS! Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:56 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Nope Not yet. I am going to reboot tonight. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant service on your E2k box? Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:41 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm stuck. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_
RE: Outlook prob removing old account
Friggin' Lyris!! Delete and recreate your Outlook profile. Had the exact same scenario last week on Ex5.5...in fact, after I "removed" the mailbox, not only did it not go away, I had TWO instances of the same mailbox in my Folder list. Deleting and recreating profile quickly fixed the problem. -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 2:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: FW: Outlook prob removing old account Hi, Exch 2k sp3 outlook 2k As per Ed's 'never restore' method, I have set up mailbox retention on my departing users. I gave permission to the admin account to access a users mailbox who has departed in order to check any emails. I have since deleted the mailbox and account within AD however I still have the mailbox showing under folder list for the admin account. I have removed it from the admin account properties > advanced tab under outlook so I am not sure why it would still be there. Has anyone got any ideas a) why it still may be there b) how to remove it from there? I'm thinking either stop/ start IS or recreate account/ mailbox. Google/ Technet didn't throw up anything I could find but then that may be my search criteria. Thanks Rob Support Analyst TKC Group Ltd Unit 5 Ashmead Ind Est Keynsham BS31 1TZ UK 0117 916 1320 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
I finally got an event error... Failed to read attribute msExchUserAccountControl from Active Directory for /O=GSW/OU=Columbus/cn=Recipients/cn=kmoran. The Schema was properly extended and this attribute exists, but its not getting set. Which means the RUS is not running and goes back to my original post... -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions There were issues with the system attendant's detection logic that could potentially result in stuck threads, causing issues such as the RUS not stamping addresses. I don't recall seeing that myself, but a system attenant service cycle is a quick and free sanity check before calling PSS! Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:56 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Nope Not yet. I am going to reboot tonight. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant service on your E2k box? Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:41 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm stuck. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and valid) server? Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:44 AM Posted To: List - Exchange Server List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Exch2k SP3 When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global Catalog Server with no luck. Also it looks like if I create a new user the RUS is not updating it. I have turned up logging to Maximum on all relevant stuff and no errors on a rebuild except fo this one. All of our DCs and GCs are up. NSPI Proxy encountered an error while receiving a packet. The target Domain Controller or the network or a client might be down. The winsock subsystem returned the error:[0x2746]. The circuit that received this error is being closed. Anyone else experience this before? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: h
RE: GFI MailEssentials
I have nothing to complain about! I've been evaling for about a month...only 3 false positives thus far. Easy to configure, self maintainable whitelists if mail is configured to route out through MailEssentials. 3 levels of detection that are customizablebeautiful product -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: GFI MailEssentials All, Part of our company is interested in using this product. I would appreciate hearing some opinions of the product- particularly the spam portion. Thanks. Ken Jasa Messaging Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange?
Exchange version? Are you wanting to add a mailbox for them on your servers or just add a Cust. Recipient entry in the GAL? -Original Message- From: Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Is it possible? If so how? I have a list of contacts from an affiliated company's Exchange server in Excal format and I need to import it. Any idea how? Thanks Greg _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GFI MailEssentials
Thanks for taking the time to reply Casey. How much spam do you think is still sneaking through? Ken -Original Message- From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have nothing to complain about! I've been evaling for about a month...only 3 false positives thus far. Easy to configure, self maintainable whitelists if mail is configured to route out through MailEssentials. 3 levels of detection that are customizablebeautiful product -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: GFI MailEssentials All, Part of our company is interested in using this product. I would appreciate hearing some opinions of the product- particularly the spam portion. Thanks. Ken Jasa Messaging Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
They're getting replies from everyone in their address books saying, "what was that strange message you sent?" -Peter -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:54 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender? Yea but what about that 1% that has no clue their sending out viruses? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Durkee, Peter Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender? We've turned them off. I'd guess that 99% of the viruses that we receive have spoofed sender addresses, and I don't see the benefit of hitting all those people with incorrect virus alerts. -Peter -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Virus Notifications to Sender? Live with it. - Original Message - From: "Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender? > Off topic. > > With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender > we are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the > sender notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did > not actually > send any virus. I know we can turn off the notification, but then > users who > are sending viruses will not get notified that they are infected. > Kind of a > catch 22. I'm curious what other administrators policies are > regarding notification messages to the sender. Have you disabled > sender notifications > or are you just living with it? > > Pete Pfefferkorn > Senior Systems Engineer/Mail Administrator > University of Cincinnati > 51 Goodman Street > Cincinnati, OH 45221 > Phone - (513) 556-9076 > Fax - (513) 556-2042 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ 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 Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ 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 Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
It's the recovery storage group I like. And Volume Shadow Copy Service. Granted I don't need an 8-node cluster OWA is just fluff. - Original Message - From: "Bob Sadler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the "benefits" of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the ability to download your mailbox to your desktop. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Priv1.edb and stm
Hi, Exch 2k on sbs2k - all SP'd up I had a little scare earlier on with a simultaneous virus alert on one user and a disk space warning from my server which turned out to be totally unconnected however while I was trouble shooting a noticed a couple of odd things: 1) disk space on the server was decreasing rapidly from 8gb > 7.5 > 6.5 gb in the space of about 5 mins - anyone experienced this before? 2) my priv1.edb is @ 7.2 gb while the stm file was at 2.9gb. I looked at my users mailboxes and the total size of their mailboxes was under 6gb. Why would the the two priv files be more than my users mailboxes if the edb + stm = information store? I'm probably missing something here as I'm still pretty new to exch2k? TIA Rob Support Analyst TKC Group Ltd Unit 5 Ashmead Ind Est Keynsham BS31 1TZ UK 0117 916 1320 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange?
Exchange 2000 - Just want to add contacts (name and Email address) for affiliated company not part of our domain. Thanks, Greg -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Exchange version? Are you wanting to add a mailbox for them on your servers or just add a Cust. Recipient entry in the GAL? -Original Message- From: Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Is it possible? If so how? I have a list of contacts from an affiliated company's Exchange server in Excal format and I need to import it. Any idea how? Thanks Greg _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GFI MailEssentials
A pretty good guess is all I have. Monitoring before/after filtering showed that mail received by my E2K server dropped by 35% when counting incoming messages during the same time frames. I could go back through the monitor window that is installed with the product and look. The monitor window shows every message received by the MailEssentials Gateway. Further more, you can configure custom NDR's for messages deemed as spam by MailEssentials. You can also configure disclaimers for outbound mail and you can set up to have messages that are considered spam sent to an e-mail address..like a public folder. -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: GFI MailEssentials Thanks for taking the time to reply Casey. How much spam do you think is still sneaking through? Ken -Original Message- From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have nothing to complain about! I've been evaling for about a month...only 3 false positives thus far. Easy to configure, self maintainable whitelists if mail is configured to route out through MailEssentials. 3 levels of detection that are customizablebeautiful product -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: GFI MailEssentials All, Part of our company is interested in using this product. I would appreciate hearing some opinions of the product- particularly the spam portion. Thanks. Ken Jasa Messaging Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Well, I wish they would make up their minds! - Original Message - From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:48 AM Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > Actually, they actively recommend against non-standard (ie not registerable) > domain names now. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > > generally, most recommendations now are to use a real domain > > name for your internal network. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current > > addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange > > is writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal > > DNS information on the Exchange Server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, > > or only .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could > > rewrite your .loc to .com on outgoing mail. > > > > Sander > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to > > .loc in advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We > > are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue > > with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen > > here: > > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc > > (unknown[216.237.98.130]". I have reviewed both Robichaux's > > and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 looking for a way to change > > this so it appears to come from an external FQDN but was > > unable to find any reference for this. I have also looked at > > just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects > > especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. > > > > Is there any way to change this? > > > > Thanks > > -Dave Vantine > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=& > lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- -- > -- > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or > entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have > received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler > Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. > > > == > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparkl
RE: GFI MailEssentials
I was researching an entirely different issue and found that some people were having trouble with MailEssentials. The following has been copied from that research. Mail Essentials Problem: I am also having a problem with Mail Essentials. It's a little different. All email sent to distribution lists from Outlook2000 goes to badmail. Anything sent to a distribution list from Outlook Express or any other exchange client works fine. It is very strange. I contacted GFI, and they said this is a known issue. Have you tried to contact them about this problem? Good Luck! I'd be thankful for some help. Using Exchange Server 2000 sp3 and gfi mail essentials 8, I find that some (not all) incoming mail is not distributed but ends up in the badmail folder. The corresponding *.bdr files always read 'error is processing file in pickup directory', no other error code or number is visible. The mails in question do have valid 'from:' and 'to:' addresses. Since all I found on this topic is with regard to using cdonts and therefore (presumeably) not applicable in this case, this is beyond me. Since I am quite new to this whole business, please bear with me if I forgot to include necessary information and just let me know. I'll try to post everything that's needed. Thanks for helping! Bill Kuhl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange?
I've used BulkAddFromExcel, and it works great with users. Maybe BulkContactsFromExcel will do what you're looking for. http://www.cdolive.net/download/ -tom -Original Message- From: Greg Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:11 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Subject: RE: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Exchange 2000 - Just want to add contacts (name and Email address) for affiliated company not part of our domain. Thanks, Greg -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Exchange version? Are you wanting to add a mailbox for them on your servers or just add a Cust. Recipient entry in the GAL? -Original Message- From: Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Bulk import of contact list from Excel sheet into Exchange? Is it possible? If so how? I have a list of contacts from an affiliated company's Exchange server in Excal format and I need to import it. Any idea how? Thanks Greg _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
At MEC I was told that they were already over 100,000 mailboxes on Exchange 2003 in production. ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:31 PM Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
All on the same PII, 128 Meg, 9.1 GB IDE, Dell OptiPlex. [1] [1] What is this MEC you speak of? - Original Message - From: "Martin Tuip [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:20 PM Subject: Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > At MEC I was told that they were already over 100,000 mailboxes on Exchange > 2003 in production. > > ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with > Exchange 2003 ** > -- > Martin Tuip > MVP Exchange > Exchange 2000 List owner > www.exchange-mail.org > www.sharepointserver.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > > > - Original Message - > From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:31 PM > Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > > "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that > Exchange2000 sp3" > > >From a session at TechEd. > > All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's > almost 80,000 mailboxes. > > William > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. > > Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA > to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or > so they say. > > I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let > everyone else work out the bugs :) > > > > Bob Sadler > City of Leawood, KS, USA > WAN/Internet Specialist > 913-339-6700 x194 > > > -Original Message- > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Good morning, > > > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > > Exchange 5.5. > > > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > > 2004. Help!!! > > What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to > figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? > > How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a > lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow > links? > > Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it > makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and > upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
They made up their mind a few years back - register the friggin domain and move on. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:15 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > Well, I wish they would make up their minds! > > - Original Message - > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:48 AM > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > Actually, they actively recommend against non-standard (ie not > registerable) > > domain names now. > > > > -- > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:03 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > generally, > > > most recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your > > > internal network. > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current > > > addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is > > > writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal DNS > > > information on the Exchange Server. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email > address, or only > > > .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your > > > .loc to .com on outgoing mail. > > > > > > Sander > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in > > > advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex > > > 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP > header that > > > now sent out as seen > > > here: > > > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc > (unknown[216.237.98.130]". > > > I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 > > > looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an > > > external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for > this. I have > > > also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects > > > especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. > > > > > > Is there any way to change this? > > > > > > Thanks > > > -Dave Vantine > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > ext_mode=& > > lang=english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang > > =english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > ext_mode=&lang > > =english > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > > > -- > > -- > > The information contained in this email message is privileged and > > confidential information intended only for the use of the > individual > > or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this > message is > > not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > > dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly > > prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please > > immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenso
RE: additional display name?
Additionally, we create a new SMTP addy for their married name, set it as the "reply to" address and leave the old one. That way, people can still reply to her old e-mails and at some point, they will start to see the new display name. I.E. Paula J Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) now becomes Paula J Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED] AND [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Works for us...YMMV. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: additional display name? We traditionally change the user to the married name (at their request, of course) then add in parenthesis their maiden name: Paula Jones (Smith) Tends to work well. The only way to do what you want would be to create a second mailbox and set the main mailbox as an alternate recipient. That's pretty kludgy to me. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 4:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: additional display name? > > > Does anyone know of a way to have both a maiden name and > married name appear as distinct display names in the OAB, yet > have them both point to the same account? > > E2ksp3 > > Thanks, > Gordon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___NOTICE_ > This electronic mail transmission contains confidential > information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, > distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is > strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in > error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then > destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other > information in this message that do not relate to the > official business of Bain & Company shall be understood to be > neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to > Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is > subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client > contract. ___ > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Move on to what? - Original Message - From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:23 PM Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > They made up their mind a few years back - register the friggin domain and > move on. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:15 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > Well, I wish they would make up their minds! > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Roger Seielstad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:48 AM > > Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > Actually, they actively recommend against non-standard (ie not > > registerable) > > > domain names now. > > > > > > -- > > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > > Inovis Inc. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:03 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself. > > > > I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but > > generally, > > > > most recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your > > > > internal network. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:58 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > It is not the email address that I want change. Our current > > > > addressing is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > > > > > > > What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is > > > > writing. It is now writing this based upon the internal DNS > > > > information on the Exchange Server. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email > > address, or only > > > > .loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your > > > > .loc to .com on outgoing mail. > > > > > > > > Sander > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55 > > > > > > > > I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in > > > > advance of our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex > > > > 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I have found and issue with the SMTP > > header that > > > > now sent out as seen > > > > here: > > > > "Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc > > (unknown[216.237.98.130]". > > > > I have reviewed both Robichaux's and McBee's books on Exch 5.5 > > > > looking for a way to change this so it appears to come from an > > > > external FQDN but was unable to find any reference for > > this. I have > > > > also looked at just about every attribute within the Ex5.5 objects > > > > especially the IMS but nothing seems to be applicable. > > > > > > > > Is there any way to change this? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Dave Vantine > > > > > > > > _ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Web Interface: > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > > ext_mode=& > > > lang=english > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > ext_mode=&lang > > > =english > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > ext_mode=&lang > > > =english > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > >
RE: Priv1.edb and stm
Things that increase the size over raw message byte count: 1. database overhead 2. whitespace - you can see how much in the nightly online maintenance event log entries. 3. duplication of data - in some cases data exists in both STM and EDB. Things that reduce the size below raw message byte count: 1. single-instance-storage 2. compression of RTF message bodies in the EDB file ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:10 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Priv1.edb and stm Subject: Priv1.edb and stm Hi, Exch 2k on sbs2k - all SP'd up I had a little scare earlier on with a simultaneous virus alert on one user and a disk space warning from my server which turned out to be totally unconnected however while I was trouble shooting a noticed a couple of odd things: 1) disk space on the server was decreasing rapidly from 8gb > 7.5 > 6.5 gb in the space of about 5 mins - anyone experienced this before? 2) my priv1.edb is @ 7.2 gb while the stm file was at 2.9gb. I looked at my users mailboxes and the total size of their mailboxes was under 6gb. Why would the the two priv files be more than my users mailboxes if the edb + stm = information store? I'm probably missing something here as I'm still pretty new to exch2k? TIA Rob Support Analyst TKC Group Ltd Unit 5 Ashmead Ind Est Keynsham BS31 1TZ UK 0117 916 1320 This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Indeed. I forgot about the Recovery Storage Group. The VSCS will be nice for some folks too. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:09 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Subject: Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 It's the recovery storage group I like. And Volume Shadow Copy Service. Granted I don't need an 8-node cluster OWA is just fluff. - Original Message - From: "Bob Sadler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:25 AM Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the "benefits" of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the ability to download your mailbox to your desktop. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
I was told I could choose from Miller Lite or Shiner Bock. -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions At MEC I was told that they were already over 100,000 mailboxes on Exchange 2003 in production. ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:31 PM Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 "Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3" >From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 > > -Original Message- > From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 > To: Exchange Discussions > > Good morning, > > Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants > to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange > 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and > Exchange 5.5. > > How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for > 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GFI MailEssentials
Interesting Bill, I haven't experienced these problem during my eval. I'm evaling using GFI MailEssentials 8 in a gateway type setting which receives then relays mail to my e2k sp3 server. My relay machine is a .net server configured as a standalone. I've found no messages in my badmail folder and testing sending to distribution lists have proved successful. -Original Message- From: Bill Kuhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: GFI MailEssentials I was researching an entirely different issue and found that some people were having trouble with MailEssentials. The following has been copied from that research. Mail Essentials Problem: I am also having a problem with Mail Essentials. It's a little different. All email sent to distribution lists from Outlook2000 goes to badmail. Anything sent to a distribution list from Outlook Express or any other exchange client works fine. It is very strange. I contacted GFI, and they said this is a known issue. Have you tried to contact them about this problem? Good Luck! I'd be thankful for some help. Using Exchange Server 2000 sp3 and gfi mail essentials 8, I find that some (not all) incoming mail is not distributed but ends up in the badmail folder. The corresponding *.bdr files always read 'error is processing file in pickup directory', no other error code or number is visible. The mails in question do have valid 'from:' and 'to:' addresses. Since all I found on this topic is with regard to using cdonts and therefore (presumeably) not applicable in this case, this is beyond me. Since I am quite new to this whole business, please bear with me if I forgot to include necessary information and just let me know. I'll try to post everything that's needed. Thanks for helping! Bill Kuhl _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
