RE: Store.exe in Task Manager

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I understand perfectly, although I think it's 'a correct line' not 'the
correct line'.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 22 October 2003 17:17
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Store.exe in Task Manager

It's a saying that Ed is known for.  It quite correctly applies though.
If you buy 2gb of memory for your Exchange server, what good is it doing
if only 512mb gets used.  Does it make you feel better if there is lots
of memory available in reserve "just in case"?  Memory is much faster to
use than using pagefile, ergo Exchange wants to use memory if it is
available.  Now do you understand why we always use that line?


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:44 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Store.exe in Task Manager
Subject: RE: Store.exe in Task Manager


Why is that correct? 


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 October 2003 16:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Store.exe in Task Manager

The correct line is, "You didn't buy all that memory just to have it go
unused, now did you?"

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Store.exe in Task Manager

This is normal behavior for Exchange. It will grab every bit of memory
it can. It will also release memory if another program needs some.

You bought all that memory, do you really want to waste it just doing
nothing? 

-Original Message-
From: Berepoot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Store.exe in Task Manager

Using: W2K sp3 + Exch 2K sp4.
When I look in Task Manager I see that the store.exe process has a size
of about 700 MB. When I reboot my server and I look again to the
store.exe process it only has a value of 25 MB.

Is there a way to do this manually in stead of rebooting? Ok, I could do
this probably by restarting the services, but is it also possible to act
without stopping the services. (And maybe an extra: how come?)

Many thaks
Kurt

_
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]



_
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: Store.exe in Task Manager

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Why is that correct? 


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 22 October 2003 16:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Store.exe in Task Manager

The correct line is, "You didn't buy all that memory just to have it go
unused, now did you?"

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Store.exe in Task Manager

This is normal behavior for Exchange. It will grab every bit of memory it
can. It will also release memory if another program needs some.

You bought all that memory, do you really want to waste it just doing
nothing? 

-Original Message-
From: Berepoot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 4:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Store.exe in Task Manager

Using: W2K sp3 + Exch 2K sp4.
When I look in Task Manager I see that the store.exe process has a size of
about 700 MB. When I reboot my server and I look again to the store.exe
process it only has a value of 25 MB.

Is there a way to do this manually in stead of rebooting? Ok, I could do
this probably by restarting the services, but is it also possible to act
without stopping the services. (And maybe an extra: how come?)

Many thaks
Kurt

_
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]

POP3 clients external mail delayed

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Something strange is happening with POP3 clients on our Exchange 5.5 SP4
server. When they send mail to other mailboxes on the exchange server, no
problem, the mail arrives immediately. When they send to external recipients
the mail takes ages to be delivered, e.g. we sent a test message on Thursday
afternoon and it didn't arrive in the external mailbox until Friday morning!

The messages aren't stuck in the IMC queues and I'm not sure where else to
look.

Any help much appreciated!

Dan.

_
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: Brick Level Backup

[Atkinson, Daniel]

really? i was told that functionality was missing on the restore side. 

maybe our team only tested backupexec - i'll pass this onto them.

-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 September 2003 16:03
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup


Veritas NetBackup can be fully controlled via CLI.

> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 9:47 AM
> Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> Conversation: Brick Level Backup
> Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup
> 
> 
> We are being forced to re-evaluate arcserve by our 
> development team because
> it's the only product they've found that they can properly 
> interface with
> via CLI or API. This isn't for exchange backups, but I still 
> feel a bit sick
> about the idea of arcserve being installed on any of our servers.
> 
> We're told that the latest version is stable, but I'm skeptical.
> 

_
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: Brick Level Backup

[Atkinson, Daniel]

We are being forced to re-evaluate arcserve by our development team because
it's the only product they've found that they can properly interface with
via CLI or API. This isn't for exchange backups, but I still feel a bit sick
about the idea of arcserve being installed on any of our servers.

We're told that the latest version is stable, but I'm skeptical.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 16 September 2003 15:46
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Brick Level Backup

You won't find many recommendations to perform brick-level backups here.
At least not from competent Exchange Admins.  Do a full online backup,
implement deleted items retention and deleted mailbox retention and go
eat some cookies.

As for your comment about Arkanserve crashing, well I'll be!  I NEVER
had a problem with it when I used it (grin).  Truthfully, Arggserver
is the biggest piece of crap software that I have ever come across.  It
doesn't surprise me that brick-backups/restores fail using it.  I
couldn't even get a good restore from an ONLINE backup using it. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Aaron Shimmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 8:19 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Brick Level Backup
Subject: Brick Level Backup


Hi all

What is the best brick level backup software for Exchange 2000? I have
gave up on Arcserve as it crashes to many times on critical restores.

Any advice welcome.


Regards
Aaron Shimmons
Network Administrator

_
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: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Ok so you correct spoken grammatical errors in regular day to day
situations, and enjoy it. 

Is this with strangers?

Are you often punched?

> -Original Message-
> From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 19 August 2003 14:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> It is rather annoying to hear people speaking incorrectly.
> 
> Please drive through. 
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 5:03 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> Do you enjoy correcting people's grammar when you're not on 
> the internet? 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 18 August 2003 19:25
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> > 
> > 
> > That would be "you're".
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bridges,
> > Samantha
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:44 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> > 
> > Can't spell when your upset.
> > 
> > I don't want to argue anymore.  I have work to do.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:40 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> > 
> > 
> > Loser boy. If you are gonna call people names, please at least spell
> > the name correctly. :-)
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:39 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> > 
> > Oooohhhyou are sooo cool! Can I be your "only" friend 
> because you
> > know Exchange??  (what a dork!)
> > 
> > I am not whiny or lazy or technically lacking thank you 
> very much.  I
> > think you are lacking in other manhood areas and have to prove 
> > yourself by being the best at a computer software.
> > 
> > Get a life.looser boy!!!
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:28 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> > 
> > 
> > We can debate my "geek", "nerd" or "friends" status some other time.
> > 
> > I don't have single thing to prove, Exchange wise, here 
> Samantha.  I'm
> 
> > a messaging services manager, running communications for a company
> > with offices all over the world
> > - my Exchange org. has a ridiculous number of sites in it.  
> > The people whose opinions I actually care about in the 
> technical arena
> 
> > know what I know and/or can do.
> > 
> > Go check the archives - you'll find that I used to be 
> helpful.  Still
> > am, sometimes - just not to whiny, lazy, technically lacking people 
> > like you. You want nice?  I'll let you know my private consulting 
> > rate, and I'll be nice.  Hell, I'll even cook dinner.  You want to 
> > post here with a complete expectation that someone else is 
> going to do
> 
> > even the most basic research for you, and occasionally 
> you're going to
> 
> > get someone like me pissed at you.
> > 
> > You don't like it?  Tough.  Like you said in one of your last pieces
> > of drivel, don't read it.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 18 August 2003 10:25
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> > 
> > 
> > See, this is what I am talking about.
> > 
> > You are a real classy guy..probably some geek, nerd with no
> > friends!
> > 
> > LOL
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:20 AM
>

RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Do you enjoy correcting people's grammar when you're not on the internet? 

> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 18 August 2003 19:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> That would be "you're".
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Bridges, Samantha
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:44 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> Can't spell when your upset.
> 
> I don't want to argue anymore.  I have work to do.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> Loser boy. If you are gonna call people names, please at 
> least spell the name correctly. :-) 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 9:39 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> Oooohhhyou are sooo cool! Can I be your "only" friend 
> because you know Exchange??  (what a dork!)
> 
> I am not whiny or lazy or technically lacking thank you very 
> much.  I think you are lacking in other manhood areas and 
> have to prove yourself by being the best at a computer software.  
> 
> Get a life.looser boy!!!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:28 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> We can debate my "geek", "nerd" or "friends" status some other time.  
> 
> I don't have single thing to prove, Exchange wise, here 
> Samantha.  I'm a messaging services manager, running 
> communications for a company with offices all over the world 
> - my Exchange org. has a ridiculous number of sites in it.  
> The people whose opinions I actually care about in the 
> technical arena know what I know and/or can do.  
> 
> Go check the archives - you'll find that I used to be 
> helpful.  Still am, sometimes - just not to whiny, lazy, 
> technically lacking people like you. You want nice?  I'll let 
> you know my private consulting rate, and I'll be nice.  Hell, 
> I'll even cook dinner.  You want to post here with a complete 
> expectation that someone else is going to do even the most 
> basic research for you, and occasionally you're going to get 
> someone like me pissed at you.
> 
> You don't like it?  Tough.  Like you said in one of your last 
> pieces of drivel, don't read it.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 August 2003 10:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> See, this is what I am talking about.
> 
> You are a real classy guy..probably some geek, nerd with 
> no friends!
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:20 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> We care because you're a time wasting, freebie wanting, idiot.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 August 2003 10:17
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Services Not Restarting After Reboot of Server
> 
> 
> Thanks Tony for your advice.
> 
> Why do you care what I ask on this listserv?  I thought this 
> list was for questions.  Maybe the questions asked by people 
> in this list seem "stupid" to you, but they are not.  Who 
> made you the judge of what questions are good/helpful and 
> which ones are not?  If you are too good for the questions
> being asked on this list then don't answer. 
> 
> I don't know if all you do all day is work on an Exchange 
> servers but I wear many hats here in the name of special 
> education children and I don't have time during or after work 
> everyday/and every minute to read books on Exchange server.  
> I have picked up a few good books in the past few weeks and 
> they are helpful and hopefully I won't have to bother this 
> list.I wish for nothing more.  But until I become a pro 
> like yourself, I will look to people like yourself who know 
> this stuff backwards and forwards to give some direction.  
> 
> I take great offense to your undeserved comments and wish 
> that you could remember the days when you were learning.  I 
> was given this project and am doing the best I can.  This 
> list is for getting help, not a social event for buddies.
> 
> It is a shame that you are not more patient.
> 
> Thanks and I have appreciated your help in the 

RE: New Entourage

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Ok, can anyone confirm how it works with E2K?

With 5.5 you get what looks like an IMAP connection...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 06 August 2003 16:41
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Entourage

Its designed for E2K or higher 

-Original Message-
From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Entourage

I got the same results you did, using Entourage with an Exchange 5.5 server.
Does it maybe work better with 2000?

-Peter


-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 5:38
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: New Entourage


I myself don't like the Entourage update for Office X. I don't get anything
more than I did with IMAP it seems. Any public folders that are set to be of
Calendar type or Contact type don't show up correctly.

Is there a list of specific benefits of the update over just using IMAP?

-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com

- Original Message - 
From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: New Entourage


> I'm thinking about trying out citrix
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 05 August 2003 19:44
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> >
> >
> > So are OSX Macs therefore doomed to OWA, or is there an alternative?
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:44 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> >
> > I think they did away with Outlook because they were in the
> > semi-absurd situation of maintaining three entirely different
> > mail clients for the Mac, none of which made everyone, happy,
> > and two of which weren't OS X native, so they needed major
> > upgrades, and were free. I don't find it at all
> > incomprehensable that they'd concentrate their resources on
> > the product that generates some revenue. As far as
> > Entourage's new Exchange awareness goes, it's about what
> > you'd expect from a point upgrade.
> >
> > -Peter
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:25
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> >
> >
> > I don't doubt it.  That makes perfect business sense.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:43 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> > >
> > >
> > > My personal opinion is that they did away with Outlook for
> > > the Mac because
> > > OS X, especially Jaguar (10.2.x) is the first OS with a
> > > legitimate chance of
> > > displacing Microsoft from their dominance of the desktop.
> > It meets the
> > > requirements of having Microsoft Office (Word/Excel/etc).
> > > Therefore, the
> > > only missing app is a full blown Outlook client. Its
> > > Microsoft's only way to
> > > stop the tide without giving up their entire Mac offering.
> > >
> > > Roger
> > > --
> > > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> > > Sr. Systems Administrator
> > > Inovis Inc.
> > >
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:11 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is more venting than any serious question:
> > > >
> > > > What about MAPI? (Outlook for OfficeX-1)
> > > > What about RPC over HTTP? (I know that would have to be coded
> > > > from scratch)
> > > > You must enable IMAP on your Exchange server?
> > > >
> > > > Why did they get rid of the Outlook product?  Why make an
> > > > organization with
> > > > Macs go through so many hoops?  It's not like they have to
> > > > code from scratch.
> > > > It makes no sense.  The whole idea is to make 

RE: New Entourage

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I'm thinking about trying out citrix

> -Original Message-
> From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 05 August 2003 19:44
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Entourage
> 
> 
> So are OSX Macs therefore doomed to OWA, or is there an alternative?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:44 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Entourage
> 
> I think they did away with Outlook because they were in the 
> semi-absurd situation of maintaining three entirely different 
> mail clients for the Mac, none of which made everyone, happy, 
> and two of which weren't OS X native, so they needed major 
> upgrades, and were free. I don't find it at all 
> incomprehensable that they'd concentrate their resources on 
> the product that generates some revenue. As far as 
> Entourage's new Exchange awareness goes, it's about what 
> you'd expect from a point upgrade. 
> 
> -Peter
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Entourage
> 
> 
> I don't doubt it.  That makes perfect business sense.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:43 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> > 
> > 
> > My personal opinion is that they did away with Outlook for
> > the Mac because
> > OS X, especially Jaguar (10.2.x) is the first OS with a 
> > legitimate chance of
> > displacing Microsoft from their dominance of the desktop. 
> It meets the
> > requirements of having Microsoft Office (Word/Excel/etc). 
> > Therefore, the
> > only missing app is a full blown Outlook client. Its 
> > Microsoft's only way to
> > stop the tide without giving up their entire Mac offering.
> > 
> > Roger
> > --
> > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> > Sr. Systems Administrator
> > Inovis Inc.
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:11 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This is more venting than any serious question:
> > > 
> > > What about MAPI? (Outlook for OfficeX-1)
> > > What about RPC over HTTP? (I know that would have to be coded
> > > from scratch)
> > > You must enable IMAP on your Exchange server?
> > > 
> > > Why did they get rid of the Outlook product?  Why make an
> > > organization with
> > > Macs go through so many hoops?  It's not like they have to 
> > > code from scratch.
> > > It makes no sense.  The whole idea is to make the products 
> > across both
> > > platforms the same or mostly the same.  They didn't take Word
> > > or Excel,
> > > retool it, take out some important features and call it 
> > > something else, did
> > > they?  Keerist!!
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:02 PM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: Re: New Entourage
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Depends on how one defines Exchange aware. If by Exchange
> > > > aware, you mean
> > > > 'it's Outlook' then no. If understanding free/busy and 
> > and automatic
> > > > configuration of address book and other account settings to
> > > > support Exchange
> > > > qualifies, then maybe.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > From: "Erik Sojka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 15:29:57 -0400
> > > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Subject: RE: New Entourage
> > > > > 
> > > > > I haven't looked at it yet, but it wouldn't be
> > > > Exchange-aware if it was,
> > > > > right?  When we looked at this for our lone Mac user ~18
> > > > months ago we had to
> > > > > settle for the previous version of Outlook and the user had
> > > > to switch between
> > > > > OSX for Office and OS9 for Outlook since we didn't want to
> > > > open up IMAP or
> > > > > POP3 for him.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> _
> > > > 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: New Entourage

[Atkinson, Daniel]

> Configuring an Outlook for the Mac to 
> connect across subnets? I need that ongoing pain like I need 
> another hole in my head.

It's not hard, just a hosts file or DNS entry then it workshow is this
so different from windows? 

> > Why did they get rid of the Outlook product?
> 
> Hopefully because they realized it sucked complete ass. 
> Entourage was a better product at 1.0 than Outlook for the 
> mac had ever been.

Outlook 2001 would be perfectly adequate if they fixed the HTML rendering,
made task requests work and sorted a few other flaws that escape me. It's
not exactly a major re-write, just a service pack.

Even without these fixes OL2001 is workable, we have 200 mac users who are
getting on with their jobs. 



_
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]

New Entourage

[Atkinson, Daniel]

An update is available for office X on the mac which includes the new
exchange-aware entourage.

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/mac/DOWNL
OAD/OFFICEX/exchangeupdate.xml&secid=5&ssid=14&flgnosysreq=True

Our first impressions are that it's a load of rubbish. Seems very slow,
doesn't integrate well with our exchange 5.5. 

Anyone else tried it?

dan.

_
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: Auto Accept Utility stopped working

[Atkinson, Daniel]

This powertools sounds interesting. When it reads the online backup from the
tape does it need to read the whole thing or can it locate a mailbox,
message etc on the tape and extract it? I tried to find out on the website
but it's not exactly clear as to whether you can do this...

We've had to do a few recovery restores to get back mailboxes in the past
and while this is dead easy, it takes hours to restore the IS from tape. 


> -Original Message-
> From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 30 July 2003 17:50
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Right in that case the latest version of PowerTools is able 
> to read the backup tape and get the priv.edb file directly 
> from the Online Backup. Note I wrote online backup not 
> offline backup. I don't know how this works as well use 
> Netbackup but that is the way it is supposed to work, if not 
> then call Ontrack support. You are never going to be able to 
> backup the priv.edb unless you stop the information store 
> which is not a good idea. If it can't read the tape directly 
> then you would need to do an online restore to a separate 
> server where the priv.edb will be located and you can then 
> use PowerTools to access it. We have evaluated PowerTools and 
> were not overly impressed it couldn't read priv.edb files if 
> the database had been under load and created lots of 
> transaction logs. I believe a newer version currently in beta 
> and to be released in September may work better.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 July 2003 17:39
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Bingo,
> 
> That's the one...
> 
> We were tryin to back-up the PRIV.EDB for easier access by 
> the utility. But, we were sure that you can't directly 
> back-up the PRIV.EDB.  Just trying to quell an argument with 
> one my guys, and needed to make sure that you weren't able to 
> backup the PRIV.EDB without stopping the services.
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> That is not possible you can't do a file backup of the 
> databases files they are locked open unless you stop the IS. 
> What app are you trying to use to read the edb files is it 
> Ontrack's Power Tools?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 July 2003 17:30
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> We are ticking off the option for the Information Store, but 
> have now modified the job to backup the PRIV.EDB as well.  
> Only reason we're doing this is because we would like to have 
> the actual PRIV.EDB in a backup media for access by one of 
> our 3rd party applications that can access the PRIV.EDB, and 
> extract mailboxes or actual messages.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:22 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> No, you don't have to stop the services.
> 
> Please clarify how you are using veritas; i.e. are you 
> looking on the relevant drive and ticking priv.edb as a file 
> to backup? If so, this won't work, you need to tick 
> 'Microsoft Exchange Information Store' in the veritas 
> directory tree. If this doesn't appear then your exchange 
> agent isn't installed properly.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 30 July 2003 17:16
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > 
> > Well, actually we are running veritas with the exchange
> > agent, only thing is that the PRIV.EDB file is skipped.  I 
> > thought that in order to backup the PRIV.EDB file you have to 
> > stop the exchange services?
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > Paul
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:17 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > Oh, the backup won't cause any problems.  Not that it would
> > be of any use...
> > 
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
>

RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working

[Atkinson, Daniel]

No, you can't do that, if you want to copy priv.edb on it's own you have to
stop the services. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 30 July 2003 17:30
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> We are ticking off the option for the Information Store, but 
> have now modified the job to backup the PRIV.EDB as well.  
> Only reason we're doing this is because we would like to have 
> the actual PRIV.EDB in a backup media for access by one of 
> our 3rd party applications that can access the PRIV.EDB, and 
> extract mailboxes or actual messages.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:22 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> No, you don't have to stop the services.
> 
> Please clarify how you are using veritas; i.e. are you 
> looking on the relevant drive and ticking priv.edb as a file 
> to backup? If so, this won't work, you need to tick 
> 'Microsoft Exchange Information Store' in the veritas 
> directory tree. If this doesn't appear then your exchange 
> agent isn't installed properly.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 30 July 2003 17:16
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > 
> > Well, actually we are running veritas with the exchange
> > agent, only thing is that the PRIV.EDB file is skipped.  I 
> > thought that in order to backup the PRIV.EDB file you have to 
> > stop the exchange services?
> > 
> > Any ideas?
> > Paul
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:17 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > Oh, the backup won't cause any problems.  Not that it would
> > be of any use...
> > 
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:14 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > It is quite possible to do a backup of Exchange 5.5 WITHOUT
> > stopping the services.  You either use NTBackup, or use a 3rd 
> > party backup utility with an Exchange Agent.  If you decide 
> > to not use either of those 2 methods, you sure as heck better 
> > stop the Exchange services first, otherwise you will be 
> > attempting to back up an open database file as a flat file.  
> > Not good! 
> > 
> > 
> > Ben Winzenz
> > Network Engineer
> > Gardner & White
> > (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted
> > At: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:35 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> > Conversation: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > First, wanted to say that you guys have always been a great
> > help in the past.  I have a simple, but probably dumb 
> > question.  I need some ammo though before I get back to one 
> > of my employees about what he's doing. Can someone just 
> > verify what I'm saying... It is not possible to back-up 
> > the PRIV.EDB files on Exchange 5.5 unless you stop the 
> > Exchange services right?  One of my guys is trying to run a 
> > veritas backup that includes the PRIV.EDB file, and the file 
> > is skipped during the back-up operation.  I advised him as to 
> > why it does this, and how to correctly do it.  He still 
> > swears that it's veritas software screwing up...
> > 
> > Any help would be great,
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Paul
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sargent, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:53 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> > 
> > (FYI the mailbox needs Owner rights.)  So if the EventConfig
> > permissions are set, reinstall the AutoAccept script on the 
> > mailbox and you should be able
> > to test i

RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working

[Atkinson, Daniel]

No, you don't have to stop the services.

Please clarify how you are using veritas; i.e. are you looking on the
relevant drive and ticking priv.edb as a file to backup? If so, this won't
work, you need to tick 'Microsoft Exchange Information Store' in the veritas
directory tree. If this doesn't appear then your exchange agent isn't
installed properly.

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 30 July 2003 17:16
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Well, actually we are running veritas with the exchange 
> agent, only thing is that the PRIV.EDB file is skipped.  I 
> thought that in order to backup the PRIV.EDB file you have to 
> stop the exchange services?
> 
> Any ideas?
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> Oh, the backup won't cause any problems.  Not that it would 
> be of any use...
> 
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:14 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> It is quite possible to do a backup of Exchange 5.5 WITHOUT 
> stopping the services.  You either use NTBackup, or use a 3rd 
> party backup utility with an Exchange Agent.  If you decide 
> to not use either of those 2 methods, you sure as heck better 
> stop the Exchange services first, otherwise you will be 
> attempting to back up an open database file as a flat file.  
> Not good! 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul kondilys [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted 
> At: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:35 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> First, wanted to say that you guys have always been a great 
> help in the past.  I have a simple, but probably dumb 
> question.  I need some ammo though before I get back to one 
> of my employees about what he's doing. Can someone just 
> verify what I'm saying... It is not possible to back-up 
> the PRIV.EDB files on Exchange 5.5 unless you stop the 
> Exchange services right?  One of my guys is trying to run a 
> veritas backup that includes the PRIV.EDB file, and the file 
> is skipped during the back-up operation.  I advised him as to 
> why it does this, and how to correctly do it.  He still 
> swears that it's veritas software screwing up...
> 
> Any help would be great,
> 
> Thanks
> Paul
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sargent, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:53 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> (FYI the mailbox needs Owner rights.)  So if the EventConfig 
> permissions are set, reinstall the AutoAccept script on the 
> mailbox and you should be able
> to test it immediately.   If that doesn't work, try stopping and
> starting
> the Event service again and retest.   
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 1:42 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> I found it and set the permissions.  I suppose it takes time 
> to synch it up..
> 
> Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 12:29 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Rob
> 
> I am fairly new at AutoAccept utilities... Where do I look 
> for the EventConfig folder?  Sorry.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sargent, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Hi Mike.   Have you set up the client permissions for the 
> mailbox in the
> EventConfig folder?   I've forgotten to do that on occasion.And I
> think
> I learned the hard way that if this step was missed, you need 
> to uninstall the Autoaccept script again, set up the 
> EventConfig settings, then reinstall the script.
> 
> Rob Sargent
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 12:57 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Auto Accept Utility stopped working
> 
> 
> Ed,
> 
> Thanks.  I thought that was the case, so I deleted the 
> AutoAccept folder on the resource. I then ran the AutoAccept 
> utility script on that new resource. I checked the event 
> Service and it was running.  Nothing happened.
> 
> I th

RE: best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

this is the conclusion that i've come to, either that or kill some users

-Original Message-
From: Smith Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06 July 2003 04:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: best linux av?


Get a bigger box!

Joseph Smith

Network Administrator
Perlos, Inc.
5201 Alliance Gateway
Fort Worth, TX 76178-3729
Work: 817-224-9012
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: best linux av?


Yes, I see your point, although I'd hope my desktop AV would catch this
stuff before it reaches the exchange server.

What I don't like is the burden of a realtime scan on exchange. Perhaps a
combination of gateway scanning, nightly mailbox scans and realtime desktop
AV would be sufficient.

> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2003 15:45
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> Do you really think that the *ONLY* possible way a virus can 
> get into your Exchange environment is through your SMTP gateway?
> 
> Let's say a user uses Outlook to POP an email from their 
> personal account into their Exchange mailbox, and that email 
> is infected. Or let's say that a user downloads a file from 
> the Internet that infects their Exchange mailbox. Now what? 
> Since you don't have any mailbox-level virus protection, you 
> have to sit there and watch this thing propagate to all your 
> users and infect all your mailboxes.
> 
> But at least your gateway will clean it before it sends it 
> out to your customers.
> 
> Jason
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:22 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > why?
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:21
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > >
> > >
> > > It is absolutely essential that you have virus protection on your 
> > > Exchange servers, over and above whatever gateway virus 
> protection 
> > > you might be running.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > >
> > > > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any 
> > > > difference, apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the
> > > exchange
> > > > box and seeing less of that crappy 'retrieving data' dialog in 
> > > > outlook...
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but
> > > think that
> > > > > whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of added
> > > reassurance
> > > > > having something like Scanmail on the Exchange box, given
> > > the file
> > > > > blocking capabilities and all.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > --
> > > > > Paul Hutchings
> > > > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original
> > > > > Message-
> > > > > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > > Subject: best linux av?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for
> > > linux with
> > > > > > postfix as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm 
> > > > > >

RE: best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yes you're right...

As an aside, I just turned off the emanager component of Trend and this
seems to have helped quite a bit with the CPU load. I'll do some monitoring
next week to find out for sure...

> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2003 16:09
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> Nope, wrong.  Once again you're assuming that all your 
> desktops are happily protected and working fine, in fact that 
> every link in the chain is in place and secure.  With viruses 
> you cannot ensure that.  You have to attack viruses robustly 
> on ALL fronts, with as few assumptions as possible.
> 
> The "it will be OK because or desktop PCs are protected" 
> approach is a recipe for disaster.
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:50
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, I see your point, although I'd hope my desktop AV would
> > catch this
> > stuff before it reaches the exchange server.
> > 
> > What I don't like is the burden of a realtime scan on
> > exchange. Perhaps a
> > combination of gateway scanning, nightly mailbox scans and 
> > realtime desktop
> > AV would be sufficient.
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:45
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Do you really think that the *ONLY* possible way a virus can
> > > get into your Exchange environment is through your SMTP gateway?
> > > 
> > > Let's say a user uses Outlook to POP an email from their
> > > personal account into their Exchange mailbox, and that email 
> > > is infected. Or let's say that a user downloads a file from 
> > > the Internet that infects their Exchange mailbox. Now what? 
> > > Since you don't have any mailbox-level virus protection, you 
> > > have to sit there and watch this thing propagate to all your 
> > > users and infect all your mailboxes.
> > > 
> > > But at least your gateway will clean it before it sends it
> > > out to your customers.
> > > 
> > > Jason
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:bounce-exchange-
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:22 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > 
> > > > why?
> > > > 
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:21
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is absolutely essential that you have virus
> > protection on your
> > > > > Exchange servers, over and above whatever gateway virus
> > > protection
> > > > > you might be running.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:bounce-exchange-
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any
> > > > > > difference, apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the
> > > > > exchange
> > > > > > box and seeing less of that crappy 'retrieving data'
> > dialog in
> > > > > > outlook...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > > > Subject: 

RE: best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yes, I see your point, although I'd hope my desktop AV would catch this
stuff before it reaches the exchange server.

What I don't like is the burden of a realtime scan on exchange. Perhaps a
combination of gateway scanning, nightly mailbox scans and realtime desktop
AV would be sufficient.

> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2003 15:45
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> Do you really think that the *ONLY* possible way a virus can 
> get into your Exchange environment is through your SMTP gateway?
> 
> Let's say a user uses Outlook to POP an email from their 
> personal account into their Exchange mailbox, and that email 
> is infected. Or let's say that a user downloads a file from 
> the Internet that infects their Exchange mailbox. Now what? 
> Since you don't have any mailbox-level virus protection, you 
> have to sit there and watch this thing propagate to all your 
> users and infect all your mailboxes.
> 
> But at least your gateway will clean it before it sends it 
> out to your customers.
> 
> Jason
> 
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:22 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > why?
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:21
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > >
> > >
> > > It is absolutely essential that you have virus protection on your 
> > > Exchange servers, over and above whatever gateway virus 
> protection 
> > > you might be running.
> > >
> > > Jason
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > >
> > > > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any 
> > > > difference, apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the
> > > exchange
> > > > box and seeing less of that crappy 'retrieving data' dialog in 
> > > > outlook...
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but
> > > think that
> > > > > whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of added
> > > reassurance
> > > > > having something like Scanmail on the Exchange box, given
> > > the file
> > > > > blocking capabilities and all.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > > Paul
> > > > > --
> > > > > Paul Hutchings
> > > > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original
> > > > > Message-
> > > > > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > > Subject: best linux av?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for
> > > linux with
> > > > > > postfix as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm 
> > > > > > thinking i'd like to remove the CPU burden of AV 
> scanning from 
> > > > > > the exchange box and put it on our
> > > > > > linux relay which also does the spam filtering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > dan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > _
> > > &

RE: best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

why?

> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2003 15:21
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> It is absolutely essential that you have virus protection on 
> your Exchange servers, over and above whatever gateway virus 
> protection you might be running.
> 
> Jason
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any 
> > difference, apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the 
> exchange 
> > box and seeing less of that crappy 'retrieving data' dialog in 
> > outlook...
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but 
> think that 
> > > whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of added 
> reassurance 
> > > having something like Scanmail on the Exchange box, given 
> the file 
> > > blocking capabilities and all.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Paul
> > > --
> > > Paul Hutchings
> > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > -Original
> > > Message-
> > > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: best linux av?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for 
> linux with 
> > > > postfix as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm 
> > > > thinking i'd like to
> > > > remove the CPU burden of AV scanning from the exchange box
> > > > and put it on our
> > > > linux relay which also does the spam filtering.
> > > >
> > > > thanks
> > > > dan.
> > > >
> > > > 
> _
> > > > 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&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: best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I though scanmail works on the IMS, not the MTA? Forgive my ignorance if
not...

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2003 15:08
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> Yes, but if (assuming for whatever reason the desktop AV 
> doesn't kick in) someone downloads and runs something nasty, 
> what would stop god knows what from being sent to all your 
> internal users, even if the gateway AV traps it on the way 
> out to the Internet?
> 
> regards,
> Paul
> --
> Paul Hutchings
> Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:56
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > 
> > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any
> > difference,
> > apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the exchange box 
> > and seeing less
> > of that crappy 'retrieving data' dialog in outlook...
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but
> > > think that whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of 
> > > added reassurance having something like Scanmail on the 
> > > Exchange box, given the file blocking capabilities and all.
> > > 
> > > regards,
> > > Paul
> > > --
> > > Paul Hutchings
> > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > > -Original
> > > Message-
> > > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: best linux av?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for 
> linux with 
> > > > postfix as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm 
> > > > thinking i'd like to
> > > > remove the CPU burden of AV scanning from the exchange box 
> > > > and put it on our
> > > > linux relay which also does the spam filtering.
> > > > 
> > > > thanks
> > > > dan.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> _
> > > > 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]
> 
> _
> 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: best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any difference,
apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the exchange box and seeing less
of that crappy 'retrieving data' dialog in outlook...

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but 
> think that whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of 
> added reassurance having something like Scanmail on the 
> Exchange box, given the file blocking capabilities and all.
> 
> regards,
> Paul
> --
> Paul Hutchings
> Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > -Original 
> Message-
> > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: best linux av?
> > 
> > 
> > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for linux
> > with postfix
> > as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm thinking 
> > i'd like to
> > remove the CPU burden of AV scanning from the exchange box 
> > and put it on our
> > linux relay which also does the spam filtering.
> > 
> > thanks
> > dan.
> > 
> > _
> > 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]

best linux av?

[Atkinson, Daniel]

just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for linux with postfix
as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm thinking i'd like to
remove the CPU burden of AV scanning from the exchange box and put it on our
linux relay which also does the spam filtering.

thanks
dan.

_
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: slow login with mac clients after restore.

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Ok thanks, will give it a go...

> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen Peters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 18 June 2003 13:50
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: slow login with mac clients after restore.
> 
> 
> You could run tcpdump on the OsX clients to see what's going on.
> 
> -Jeroen
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Atkinson, Daniel
> Sent: woensdag 18 juni 2003 14:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: slow login with mac clients after restore.
> 
> 
> Hmmm, this slow login problem has appeared again. All mac 
> clients (outlook
> 2001) hang for five minutes after entering login credentials. 
> After that the client works perfectly...
> 
> - Exchange 5.5 SP4
> - Macs connecting via IP
> - Mixed MAC OS versions (9.2 > X)
> - All macs have correct hosts file, and dns servers (dns 
> contains correct
> info)
> - Exchange was restored two days ago from backup, to the same 
> server, 1gb of transaction logs played in
> - All other networking on macs seems fine
> - All windows clients are fine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 1) Are we dealing with Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000?  
> What service
> > > pack level are you running?
> > > 2) How are the Macs connected to the network?
> > > 3) What rev of the MAC OS are they running?
> > > 4) Do the Macs have a HOSTS file and if so is it setup correctly?
> > > 5) For the restore server did you change anything?  More 
> > > importantly, did you restore to the same hardware or to a 
> > > completely new server?  I'm assuming same hardware at this point.
> > > 6) Since the Macs can talk to the server what are the ping 
> > > times like?  (You can use MacPing to determine this if you 
> > > run anything earlier than Mac OSX. If you are running MacOSX 
> > > then bring up a terminal window and run it from there.).
> > > 
> > > This will do for a start.
> > > 
> > > Regards.
> > > 
> > > Nate Couch
> > > EDS Messaging
> > > 
> > > > --
> > > > From:   Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > Reply To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent:   Tuesday, June 17, 2003 06:44
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject:slow login with mac clients after restore.
> > > > 
> > > > last night we did a restore because we've been getting some
> > > database
> > > > errors in the event log. we restored from a good backup and
> > > played in
> > > > the log files
> > > > as normal - everything worked great and we're up and
> > > running again, except
> > > > now our mac users with outlook 2001 take about 5 minutes
> > to log in.
> > > > 
> > > > they enter credentials at startup and outlook 2001 just
> > hangs for 5
> > > > minutes and then starts and works perfectly.
> > > > 
> > > > we are going to restart the server at lunch to see if
> > this fixes it
> > > > but i'm not hopeful.
> > > > 
> > > > any ideas?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> _
> > > > 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
> > > > =&la
> > > > ng=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: slow login with mac clients after restore.

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yes, tried that, no difference...

> -Original Message-
> From: Henderson Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 18 June 2003 13:44
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: slow login with mac clients after restore.
> 
> 
> Have you tried recreating the Outlook client exchange profile 
> to see if the slow logon still occurs?
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 18 June 2003 13:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: slow login with mac clients after restore.
> 
> 
> Hmmm, this slow login problem has appeared again. All mac 
> clients (outlook
> 2001) hang for five minutes after entering login credentials. 
> After that the client works perfectly...
> 
> - Exchange 5.5 SP4
> - Macs connecting via IP
> - Mixed MAC OS versions (9.2 > X)
> - All macs have correct hosts file, and dns servers (dns 
> contains correct
> info)
> - Exchange was restored two days ago from backup, to the same 
> server, 1gb of transaction logs played in
> - All other networking on macs seems fine
> - All windows clients are fine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > 1) Are we dealing with Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000?  
> What service
> > > pack level are you running?
> > > 2) How are the Macs connected to the network?
> > > 3) What rev of the MAC OS are they running?
> > > 4) Do the Macs have a HOSTS file and if so is it setup correctly?
> > > 5) For the restore server did you change anything?  More 
> > > importantly, did you restore to the same hardware or to a 
> > > completely new server?  I'm assuming same hardware at this point.
> > > 6) Since the Macs can talk to the server what are the ping 
> > > times like?  (You can use MacPing to determine this if you 
> > > run anything earlier than Mac OSX. If you are running MacOSX 
> > > then bring up a terminal window and run it from there.).
> > > 
> > > This will do for a start.
> > > 
> > > Regards.
> > > 
> > > Nate Couch
> > > EDS Messaging
> > > 
> > > > --
> > > > From:   Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > Reply To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent:   Tuesday, June 17, 2003 06:44
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject:slow login with mac clients after restore.
> > > > 
> > > > last night we did a restore because we've been getting some
> > > database
> > > > errors in the event log. we restored from a good backup and
> > > played in
> > > > the log files
> > > > as normal - everything worked great and we're up and
> > > running again, except
> > > > now our mac users with outlook 2001 take about 5 minutes
> > to log in.
> > > > 
> > > > they enter credentials at startup and outlook 2001 just
> > hangs for 5
> > > > minutes and then starts and works perfectly.
> > > > 
> > > > we are going to restart the server at lunch to see if
> > this fixes it
> > > > but i'm not hopeful.
> > > > 
> > > > any ideas?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> _
> > > > 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
> > > > =&la
> > > > ng=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]
> 
> _
> List po

RE: slow login with mac clients after restore.

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Hmmm, this slow login problem has appeared again. All mac clients (outlook
2001) hang for five minutes after entering login credentials. After that the
client works perfectly...

- Exchange 5.5 SP4
- Macs connecting via IP
- Mixed MAC OS versions (9.2 > X)
- All macs have correct hosts file, and dns servers (dns contains correct
info)
- Exchange was restored two days ago from backup, to the same server, 1gb of
transaction logs played in
- All other networking on macs seems fine
- All windows clients are fine




> > 1) Are we dealing with Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000?  What
> > service pack level are you running?
> > 2) How are the Macs connected to the network?
> > 3) What rev of the MAC OS are they running?
> > 4) Do the Macs have a HOSTS file and if so is it setup correctly? 
> > 5) For the restore server did you change anything?  More 
> > importantly, did you restore to the same hardware or to a 
> > completely new server?  I'm assuming same hardware at this point.
> > 6) Since the Macs can talk to the server what are the ping 
> > times like?  (You can use MacPing to determine this if you 
> > run anything earlier than Mac OSX. If you are running MacOSX 
> > then bring up a terminal window and run it from there.).
> > 
> > This will do for a start.
> > 
> > Regards.
> > 
> > Nate Couch
> > EDS Messaging
> > 
> > > --
> > > From: Atkinson, Daniel
> > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 06:44
> > > To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject:  slow login with mac clients after restore.
> > > 
> > > last night we did a restore because we've been getting some
> > database
> > > errors in the event log. we restored from a good backup and
> > played in
> > > the log files
> > > as normal - everything worked great and we're up and
> > running again, except
> > > now our mac users with outlook 2001 take about 5 minutes 
> to log in.
> > > 
> > > they enter credentials at startup and outlook 2001 just 
> hangs for 5
> > > minutes and then starts and works perfectly.
> > > 
> > > we are going to restart the server at lunch to see if 
> this fixes it
> > > but i'm not hopeful.
> > > 
> > > any ideas?
> > > 
> > > _
> > > 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
> > > =&la
> > > ng=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]

_
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: slow login with mac clients after restore.

[Atkinson, Daniel]

It's ok, the restart fixed it, some gremlin or other...

Thanks anyway.

> -Original Message-
> From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 17 June 2003 12:57
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: slow login with mac clients after restore.
> 
> 
> Some questions first.
> 
> 1) Are we dealing with Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000?  What 
> service pack level are you running?
> 2) How are the Macs connected to the network?
> 3) What rev of the MAC OS are they running?
> 4) Do the Macs have a HOSTS file and if so is it setup correctly? 
> 5) For the restore server did you change anything?  More 
> importantly, did you restore to the same hardware or to a 
> completely new server?  I'm assuming same hardware at this point.
> 6) Since the Macs can talk to the server what are the ping 
> times like?  (You can use MacPing to determine this if you 
> run anything earlier than Mac OSX. If you are running MacOSX 
> then bring up a terminal window and run it from there.).
> 
> This will do for a start.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Nate Couch
> EDS Messaging 
> 
> > --
> > From:   Atkinson, Daniel
> > Reply To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent:   Tuesday, June 17, 2003 06:44
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:slow login with mac clients after restore.
> > 
> > last night we did a restore because we've been getting some 
> database 
> > errors in the event log. we restored from a good backup and 
> played in 
> > the log files
> > as normal - everything worked great and we're up and 
> running again, except
> > now our mac users with outlook 2001 take about 5 minutes to log in. 
> > 
> > they enter credentials at startup and outlook 2001 just hangs for 5 
> > minutes and then starts and works perfectly.
> > 
> > we are going to restart the server at lunch to see if this fixes it 
> > but i'm not hopeful.
> > 
> > any ideas?
> > 
> > _
> > 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
> > =&la
> > ng=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]

slow login with mac clients after restore.

[Atkinson, Daniel]

last night we did a restore because we've been getting some database errors
in the event log. we restored from a good backup and played in the log files
as normal - everything worked great and we're up and running again, except
now our mac users with outlook 2001 take about 5 minutes to log in. 

they enter credentials at startup and outlook 2001 just hangs for 5 minutes
and then starts and works perfectly.

we are going to restart the server at lunch to see if this fixes it but i'm
not hopeful.

any ideas?

_
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: seems like a name resolution problem

[Atkinson, Daniel]

1. there are no entries in the local hosts files, dns entries do not exist
for the exchange server or dc's - wins and lmhosts resolve the netbios names
correctly.
2. there are 2 nt domains & 2 exchange servers, each server is in a separate
org and separate domain. Each user has an nt account in 1 domain, and a
mailbox on the server in that domain. When they visit a remote office, they
can't log in to their exchange server in the remote domain... 

I will set up dns entries and see if that helps...

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 10 June 2003 12:51
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: seems like a name resolution problem
> 
> 
> 1. Outlook by default will look to its hosts file first and 
> then DNS ( and failing that lmhosts and WINS) to resolve the 
> Exchange Server. 2. What domain are these users logging into?
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 6:54 AM
> Subject: seems like a name resolution problem
> 
> 
> > I have an exchange server at another office on the end of a vpn 
> > tunnel.
> When
> > the users from that office come here to work they can't 
> connect to it. 
> > Similarly, when our users go there they can't connect to 
> the exchange
> server
> > here. The servers are in different orgs and different nt domains, no
> trusts
> > exist between the domains.
> >
> > All users can ping the exchange servers, PDCs, BDCs etc by netbios 
> > name
> from
> > either location. I can see correct 1Ch entries in our WINS 
> for the DCs 
> > in each domain and i have even tried giving users lmhosts 
> entries for 
> > their exchange server and DCs. No matter what i try outlook 
> just hangs 
> > at login, or when clicking 'check names' in the profile setup...
> >
> > Any ideas? DNS occurs to me but I don't understand how DNS 
> relates to 
> > logging into exchange - a brief explanation would be very much
> appreciated.
> >
> > thanks
> > dan.
> >
> > _
> > 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]

seems like a name resolution problem

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I have an exchange server at another office on the end of a vpn tunnel. When
the users from that office come here to work they can't connect to it.
Similarly, when our users go there they can't connect to the exchange server
here. The servers are in different orgs and different nt domains, no trusts
exist between the domains.

All users can ping the exchange servers, PDCs, BDCs etc by netbios name from
either location. I can see correct 1Ch entries in our WINS for the DCs in
each domain and i have even tried giving users lmhosts entries for their
exchange server and DCs. No matter what i try outlook just hangs at login,
or when clicking 'check names' in the profile setup...

Any ideas? DNS occurs to me but I don't understand how DNS relates to
logging into exchange - a brief explanation would be very much appreciated.

thanks
dan.

_
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: OFFICE XP and BLACKBERRY

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Is this wireless calendar or sync?


> -Original Message-
> From: Reed, Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 20 January 2003 14:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OFFICE XP and BLACKBERRY
> 
> 
>   Exchange
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:20 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OFFICE XP and BLACKBERRY
> 
> 
> Exchange flavor BB or Internet mail flavor?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Reed, Alexander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:11 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: OFFICE XP and BLACKBERRY
> 
> 
>   Anyone know why appointments are doubled with 
> Blackberry and Office XP?
> 
>   Thanks,
>   Alex
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Groupwise forwarding to Exchange - OWA Problem

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I have a user working at a customer site who has mail forwarded from an
account on the customer's Groupwise server to our exchange server. She can
read the mail fine when dialled in with Outlook, but no good with OWA. The
mails appear as attachments called 'read.htm' and when she opens them it
says 'the attachment is a type that is not yet supported''.

Any ideas?

Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Very OT - txt handling

[Atkinson, Daniel]

You could do this in excel using VBA, write a little app that will parse the
text file and update the excel sheet. Any VB/VBA developer should be able to
help you with this. 
  
> The idea is to find/create a little code that pushes the data 
> in this txt file to exell on a daily basis.
>  
> Do you know of any code that could do this?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: PDA recommendations for access to Exchange 2000 mailboxes

[Atkinson, Daniel]

We are in a trial period with blackberry on the O2 (BT cellnet) network -
it's working very well.


> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 November 2002 15:43
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: PDA recommendations for access to Exchange 2000 mailboxes
> 
> Beware of blackberry.  Don't know about the situation in the states, but
> in Europe the GSM provider must specifically support blackberry (ie. Not
> any GSM provider with GPRS support).
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 21 November 2002 4:38 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: PDA recommendations for access to Exchange 2000 mailboxes
> >
> >
> > http://blackberry.net/products/software/server/index.shtml
> > Best way to go.  Less hassle for the users.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > Pennell, Ronald B.
> > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:33
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Cc: Pennell, Ronald B.
> > Subject: PDA recommendations for access to Exchange 2000 mailboxes
> >
> >
> > Has anyone had any experiences with using PDA's for
> > accessing user mailboxes?  Our company is starting to
> > research use of PDA's.  So far I have done some research
> > on the BlackBerry site.
> >
> > Any recommendations as to server software for E2K SP2.
> > Any hardware recommendations for the PDA's
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Ron Pennell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Backing up Exchange 5.5

[Atkinson, Daniel]

You need to read the disaster recovery white paper (search on
support.microsoft.com) and get daily online backups working properly. When
you have this worked out, get a recovery server (any old box will do, just
get a big IDE disk in it for the IS) and do some test restores. Also
configure deleted item retention properly, including public folders.

When you can confidently restore and get whatever data you need out of the
IS with your recovery box, demonstrate this to your management and stop
doing brick level backups. 

Really, stop it...

> -Original Message-
> From: Karon Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 November 2002 15:34
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Backing up Exchange 5.5
> 
> We're trying to backup one in particular Exchange 5.5 server and we keep
> getting tons of "corrupt file" errors and we're told that we have a
> corrupt database.  We use Veritas Backup Exec 8.6, we have an Outlook 2002
> client loaded on the server because yes, we're doing brick level backups.
> We cannot get the online defrag to run it runs for a few minutes and then
> terminates I don't think it's really doing anything because it would take
> longer if it was.  Is there a way to force an online defrag?  I have tried
> over and over to convince my management to NOT do bricklevel backups but
> to no avail.  So, since I'm forced to do them we need a better way to do
> them if there is a better way.  We only back up the IS once a week if that
> and we've never backed up the pub.edb and priv.edb because you have to
> stop the services to truly back those files up.  I've also tried to
> convince them to let us take it offline to perform offline defrags which
> will create new clean databases but in order to do so I'm told it will
> delete alot of messages any message that it thinks is corrupt and so they
> don't want to do that.  This server is hanging on by a thread.  Please
> help with any suggestions that you have other than "Don't do bricklevel
> backups".
> 
> So, is there anything we can do other than rebuilding this server?  How do
> you backup the pub and priv without shutting down the services?  We do not
> use the open file agent it's don't work and never has.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Karon Miller
> E-Mail Administrator
> Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Domain Trusts and Exchange Accounts

[Atkinson, Daniel]

We have four domains with a complete-trust model. Mailboxes have NT accounts
from any of these domains. No problems here...never had any issues sharing
calendars. This is exchange 5.5.


> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 November 2002 18:22
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Domain Trusts and Exchange Accounts
> 
> Yes, maybe, especially if it is a mixed NT4.0 domain and AD setup. It will
> work but certain functions will not work in Outlook, like sharing of
> calendars can be troublesome.
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dupler, Craig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:22 PM
> Subject: RE: Domain Trusts and Exchange Accounts
> 
> 
> > Maybe.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik Vesneski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:43 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Domain Trusts and Exchange Accounts
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If you have two domains and they fully trust each other can an NT
> account
> in
> > domain a be mapped to an exchange account in domain b?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik L. Vesneski
> > Director - Information Technology
> > www.epicentric.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Virus heads up

[Atkinson, Daniel]

You need to configure trend e-manager (if you have it) to block it with a
rule that detects something in the subject line or message body.

This is not a virus, it is more of a confidence trick, although NAV is now
detecting the software that installs if you follow the link. As usual, this
is causing much confusion amongst users...

 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Young, Phil [mailto:phil.young@;wcom.co.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 8:55 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> >
> > Hi,
> > Has anyone successfully cleaned this virus using Trend Scanmail. We are
> > running Trend 3.52 in AVAPI mode with pattern 382 and I am yet to see it
> > successfully clean the virus. Are there any specific settings I should
> set
> > in Scanmail?
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Phil
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams@;gettyimages.com]
> > Sent: 11 November 2002 14:48
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Virus heads up
> >
> >
> > Well, our Help Desk staff has proven that it *is* possible to ignore me.
> > But bad things tend to happen every time they do.  Like users infecting
> > themselves with a new virus.
> >
> > Darcy
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: William Lefkovics, WLKMMAS [mailto:william@;techsanctuary.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 4:08 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Virus heads up
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't believe you.
> >
> > You are impossible to ignore.
> >
> > I think these are also associated...
> > www.cool-downloads.com
> > www.cool-downloads.net
> > www.friend-greetings.com
> > www.friend-greeting.com
> > www.friend-greetings.net
> > www.friend-greeting.net
> > www.friend-cards.net
> >
> > William
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Darcy Adams
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:24 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> >
> > I'm still going to forward this to our Help Desk.  I warned them, and
> > our security and network teams, about it when it first came around.  A
> > few days later our Security team sent out a notice that it had made it
> > in and infected some desktops.
> >
> > HELLOOO!!  Desktop support - I SENT YOU the FRIGGIN NOTICE days ago.
> > Apparently they ignored the warning.
> >
> > Darcy
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:09 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Virus heads up
> >
> >
> > That's not *technically* a virus, but its been around for close to a
> > month
> > now.
> >
> > It says in the EULA-that-noone-ever-reads that it will send messages to
> > all
> > your contacts.
> >
> > --
> > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> > Sr. Systems Administrator
> > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> > Atlanta, GA
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:nate.couch@;eds.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:59 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Virus heads up
> > >
> > >
> > > Just to let you all know one of our customer got hit with the
> > > Friend-Greeting virus a little bit ago.  From what I have
> > > learned Trend is
> > > the only one talking about this now and are calling it FRIENDGRT.B.
> > >
> > > The actions we are taking are blocking the following domain
> > > at the firewall
> > >
> > http://www.Friend-Greetings.com
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Nate Couch
> > EDS Messaging
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > ===
> > This email and its contents are confidential. If you
> > are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose
> > or use the information within this email or its
> > attachments. If you have received this email in error,
> > please delete it immediately. Thank you.
> > ===
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> > _

RE: viewer of PST

[Atkinson, Daniel]

You don't have to import it, just use file/open in outlook

> -Original Message-
> From: Khoi Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 October 2002 15:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: viewer of PST
> Sensitivity: Private
> 
> Hi exchangers,
> 
> Does anyone know of a utility that will allow a user to view their pst off
> line without importing it into your current mailbox to see old messages.
> If there is none, can anyone suggest the best practice to perform this
> function?
> 
> TIA
> -- KN
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: IS 70GB and growing....

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yes I have a 2.2gb user.

I tried to set a 2.3gb limit to stop it getting any worse, but exchange 5.5
seems to only let me set up to about 2.1gb - is this normal behaviour?


> -Original Message-
> From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 October 2002 09:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> 
> About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb.
> 
> 1 beats the rest downright...  His mailbox size is 2.6Gb.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> 
> 
> 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in
> size.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing
> 
> 
> Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?!
> The exchange server is 3 years old
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM
> Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> 
> 
> > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits.  500 users
> > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email?  Your email
> > shouldn't
> be
> > a file server.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> >
> > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup
> > window time etc.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36
> > Posted To: Exchange List
> > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing
> > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing
> >
> >
> > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you
> 
> > so angry.
> >
> > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide
> > some information..
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM
> > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> >
> >
> > > Heaven help him.
> > >
> > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> > > Technical Consultant
> > > hp Services
> > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral
> > problems."
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > It may be some one you know.
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM
> > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> > >
> > >
> > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> > > > Tech Consultant
> > > > hp Services
> > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Great
> > Cthulhu
> > >
> > > > Jones
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not
> > > > showing much improvement...
> > > >
> > > > (:=
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch,
> > > > Nate
> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I vote for two servers.
> > > >
> > > > Nate Couch
> > > > EDS Messaging
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones
> > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20
> > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> > > > >
> > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need
> > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives.
> > > > >
> > > > > (:=
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti
> > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq)
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains
> > > > > SIS.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Mark Hanji

RE: dead public folders

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Thanks for that, but it doesn't seem to work. The folders don't appear in
the 'Instances' window even if I run the DS/IS consistency adjuster.

Damn, I hope I'm not stuck with these folders!


> -Original Message-
> From: Drewery, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 July 2002 14:45
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: dead public folders
> 
> I've experienced a similar problem in the past due. Q152433 should help
> you.
> 
> Ant.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 July 2002 14:37
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: dead public folders
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Our chicago office turned off an exchange server without telling us - this
> was the only server in their site. They moved the mailboxes elsewhere and
> trashed the server.
> 
> We removed the site connector to clean up the directory but their public
> folders are still showing in our hierarchy. I can't seem to delete these
> folders - if I click on them I get the 'unable to display folder' error
> and
> if I try to delete them I get 'outlook cannot delete this foder, you do
> not
> have appropriate permissions etc'.
> 
> Any idea how I can get rid of these dead folders?
> 
> Thanks
> Dan.
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. This communication represents the originator's personal views
> and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of Canada Maritime.
> If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
> delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have
> received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forward,
> printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received
> this email in error, please immediately notify the Canmar/Cast Help Desk
> on +44 (0) 1293 582 800"
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

dead public folders

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Hi guys,
 
Our chicago office turned off an exchange server without telling us - this
was the only server in their site. They moved the mailboxes elsewhere and
trashed the server.
 
We removed the site connector to clean up the directory but their public
folders are still showing in our hierarchy. I can't seem to delete these
folders - if I click on them I get the 'unable to display folder' error and
if I try to delete them I get 'outlook cannot delete this foder, you do not
have appropriate permissions etc'.
 
Any idea how I can get rid of these dead folders?
 
Thanks
Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Haiku Friday

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Do you people know
USA qualified
for next phase of cup?



-Original Message-
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 14 June 2002 15:04
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Haiku Friday

The Wings won last night
Stanley is home in Detroit
Now I can get sleep.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I feel I must point out that I had never been to Planet Hollywood in my life
until last week. The thing was that England were playing their opening game
of the world cup, and we got invited down to watch it by a friend who works
there. Free beers and breakfast, prime position in front of the big screen,
gremlin in glass case...

Can't be wrong.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 11 June 2002 16:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

In Planet Hollywood?  Are you sure it wasn't a cockroach?

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 7:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify


I knew it. I was face to face with an actual gremlin in planet Hollywood
last week. That'll teach me to mock him.



-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 11 June 2002 15:03
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

Gremlins.

-----Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:39 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

Hi all,

I have a guy here who is owner of a load of distribution lists. He
reported to me today that he can no longer modify the list memberships
via outlook. I found I could fix the problem by going into the
distribution list properties (where he is showing as owner) and
re-selecting him as the owner.

The only thing I can think of that we've changed recently is putting in
two-way trusts between our domains (he is in a different domain to the
exchange server). I can't see how this would affect it.

Any ideas what's happening?

Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I knew it. I was face to face with an actual gremlin in planet Hollywood
last week. That'll teach me to mock him.



-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 11 June 2002 15:03
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

Gremlins.

-Original Message-----
From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:39 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

Hi all,

I have a guy here who is owner of a load of distribution lists. He reported
to me today that he can no longer modify the list memberships via outlook. I
found I could fix the problem by going into the distribution list properties
(where he is showing as owner) and re-selecting him as the owner.

The only thing I can think of that we've changed recently is putting in
two-way trusts between our domains (he is in a different domain to the
exchange server). I can't see how this would affect it.

Any ideas what's happening?

Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Distribution List Owner Can't Modify

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Hi all,

I have a guy here who is owner of a load of distribution lists. He reported
to me today that he can no longer modify the list memberships via outlook. I
found I could fix the problem by going into the distribution list properties
(where he is showing as owner) and re-selecting him as the owner.

The only thing I can think of that we've changed recently is putting in
two-way trusts between our domains (he is in a different domain to the
exchange server). I can't see how this would affect it.

Any ideas what's happening?

Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Outlook 97 Notification

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Actually, it's 'extra time', and football.


-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 05 June 2002 05:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Outlook 97 Notification

I love soccer. Especially when it's 0-0 in double overtime


- Original Message -----
From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification


>
> Yes we can claim your spelling is wrong. It's our language and you lot
don't
> talk it right or spell proper.
>
> Come on, you even think we're playing the 'soccer' world cup right now.
>
> dan.
>
>

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Outlook 97 Notification

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yes we can claim your spelling is wrong. It's our language and you lot don't
talk it right or spell proper.

Come on, you even think we're playing the 'soccer' world cup right now. 

dan.


-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:57 AM
To: 'Exchange Discussions'
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification


Because here was no standardized spelling until after the settlement of
the Americas, and because standardization developed separately, neither
side of the pond can claim their spelling is "correct" or the other
side's is wrong.  It's just different.

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultan
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ward, Stuart
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification


Surely 'authorize' is the variant and the true English spelling is
'authorise'

Stu

-Original Message-
From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification


Boy this list is educational.
Now I know that "authorise" is a British variant of AUTHORIZE. Very
cool.


-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 8:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 Notification


Sure. What's your budget?

> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Ash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:57 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Outlook 97 Notification
> 
> 
> I have users that look at 2 mailboxes. They have ol set up to display 
> a message when new mail arrives however, this does not work on the 
> secondary mailbox ??? I guess this is the way it is supposed to work 
> but does anyone know how to make it work on both  NT4 Sp6a, Ex 5.5

> SP4, OL97
> 
> 
> 
> Coolchain LtdCoolchain Ltd 
> London Road  Henley Road 
> Teynham  Paddock Wood 
> Kent Kent 
> ME9 9PR  TN12 6DN 
> 
> Tel: 01795 523200Tel: 01892 831400 
> Fax: 01795 523241Fax: 01892 831451 
> 
> All business is conducted in accordance with the company's terms and 
> conditions, a copy of which is available on request. For the avoidance

> of doubt, all orders initiated by ourselves must be signed by an 
> authorised signatory of this company.
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: trend question

[Atkinson, Daniel]

My scanmail only has 'Outbound Message Filter' in the 'realtime scan
options' which is not checked - these are inbound messages though..

-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Kain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 31 May 2002 15:25
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: trend question

On 5/31/02 9:08 AM, "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm running trend scanmail/emanager and I can't figure out how to block
> messages completely - i.e. if I set up a rule to block messages with the
> subject 'test', when I send a message with the subject 'test' from
> hotmail I
> still get a message in the recipient's inbox with subject 'test' and
> body
> 'The original message content contained a virus or was blocked due to
> blocking rules and has been removed.'
> 

In the ScanMail Management Console (not the e-manager console), do you have
the options for "Active Message Filter" (both inbound and outbound) checked?
These are in the lower-right corner of the main configuration pane of the
console.


Jeff



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: trend question

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I have it set to delete - still the messages get through...

-Original Message-
From: Kulwinder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 31 May 2002 15:18
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: trend question

You will have to set the "Action" to delete.  when setting the policy up. 
THis is on teh same page when you setup the Anti Span or Content filter.


> Hi all,
>  
> I'm running trend scanmail/emanager and I can't figure out how to block
> messages completely - i.e. if I set up a rule to block messages with the
> subject 'test', when I send a message with the subject 'test' from hotmail
I
> still get a message in the recipient's inbox with subject 'test' and body
> 'The original message content contained a virus or was blocked due to
> blocking rules and has been removed.' 
>  
> This is not what I want! I want it to completely block the message so it
> doesn't even arrive at the inbox - is this possible? Can't seem to see any
> way of setting this up...
>  
> Cheers
> Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

trend question

[Atkinson, Daniel]

 
Hi all,
 
I'm running trend scanmail/emanager and I can't figure out how to block
messages completely - i.e. if I set up a rule to block messages with the
subject 'test', when I send a message with the subject 'test' from hotmail I
still get a message in the recipient's inbox with subject 'test' and body
'The original message content contained a virus or was blocked due to
blocking rules and has been removed.' 
 
This is not what I want! I want it to completely block the message so it
doesn't even arrive at the inbox - is this possible? Can't seem to see any
way of setting this up...
 
Cheers
Dan.
 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Backup Exec

[Atkinson, Daniel]

No you don't have to reboot.

I have re-installed 5.5 so many times (during DR testing) that I could do it
with no limbs. I even know the CD-key.


-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 20 May 2002 16:23
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup Exec

I cant remember!
I think you are right. 

All I do remember was rebooting NT all the time when installing apps. So I
always assumed every program would want a reboot when installing to NT. 

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup Exec


Oddly enough, I do not remember having to reboot after installing Exchange
5.5. 


-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 11:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup Exec


If it is like any other software you install in NT4, then the answer would
be yes.

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backup Exec


Full package or the remote agent?  I can't remember about the former but
most certainly the latter does require a reboot.

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backup Exec


Does BE 8.6 intsall require a reboot on WINNT 4.0 Server?  I don't want to
go throught the install if it does.  Thanks.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
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
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Virus Attack ??

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the urgent flag. This triggers
an immediate site visit from The Queen of England, who has recently
completed her MCSE (some people say she used braindumps).


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 16 May 2002 16:22
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??

True..  How do you change the service account password again?

-Original Message-
From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


Actually, since this list is free, and anyone can come here and ask a
question, I don't think anyone has a right to say, "Don't talk to me that
way".

Don't get me wrong, I don't like it much either when Mr. Ely gets his
panties in a wad and goes hog out on me, but then I also don't like it when
someone signs onto the list and asks, "How can I change the admin account
password?", which has been asked at least 500 times and the answer is out
there to be found.

I have a very good friend whom I was managing and he had this really bad
habit of always asking me "How big can a DIM field be?" (Extra credit if you
know a. What language we are talking about, b. What the answer is) I used to
just spout the answer off without thinking about it, then I decided one day
to make him look it up.  He got quite upset with me, and said, "You know,
why don't you just tell me?"  To which I replied, "Give a man a fish, he
eats for a day, teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

While I do my best to be nice, that doesn't mean I expect others to.  As a
matter of fact, saying that they should is really placing my standards of
conduct upon them, something I don't have the right to do, and neither do
you.  While if we all lived in a perfect world, people would never get upset
and say cross things, this isn't the perfect world, and some people, and yes
even those that have the greatest knowledge of all, sometimes just say mean
things, my heartfelt suggestion is either learn to deal with it, or
unsubscribe from the list.



Just my opinion,

Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
Internet/WAN Specialist
913-339-6700 X194
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


Being nice has nothing to do with it.  Being big assholes (not specifically
anybody) has everything to do with it.

-Original Message-
From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 11:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


When signing up for this list, I think an email should be sent first to the
person wishing to join that states, "If you haven't done your homework,
don't expect to be treated with kid gloves!".

Hell, I remember my first question on this list, I was told succinctly by Ed
Crowley to read the FAQ, check the knowledgebase, and if I still had
questions, then ask them, BUT UNDER NO MEANS SHOULD I EVER ASK SUCH A STUPID
QUESTION AGAIN WITHOUT FIRST TRYING TO FIND THE ANSWER.

The long and the short of it is this, (Paraphrashing ED), if you want to be
treated nice, call PSS.  If you want the answers, first try and find out the
information on your own, read the FAQ, search the archives, look into
technet, then and only then, ask your question here.

I guess what I'm saying, is life is hard, and sometimes ppl get a bit tired
of answering questions that are quite easily answered if you only do the
research first.



Just my opinion,

Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
Internet/WAN Specialist
913-339-6700 X194
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  


-Original Message-
From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


This has NEVER been the Be Kind to the Clueless List. ALL members are
expected to do some research before asking a question, and are expected to
actually CONTRIBUTE to the list when their area of expertise is crossed. If
you have no area of expertise, you need to find the Care Bear List. Once
upon a time, this list had several self-appointed enforcers that kept it
that way. As it happened, they were also amongst the most eloquent,
best-informed contributors. Now that they've gone on to greener pastures, we
read more and more questions like "What happens if I pull the plug out of
the back of the server? Is that bad?" Perhaps we should put a fund together
and pay CJ to come back every few days

Dale L. Orr
Network Administrator
DoD Polygraph Institute



-Original Message-
From: Lanee Hicks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


You are so kind to people.  I hope they are just as kind to you in return! 

Lanee Hicks, MCSE, CNE
-Original Message---

RE: completely OT

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I have a large movie collection in a PST file, which I access across the
network.

-Original Message-
From: Julian Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 13 May 2002 16:01
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: completely OT


How does this affect Exchange ??


Yours, 

Julian Stone 



-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 13 May 2002 15:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: completely OT



Hi guys, 

apparently there is a way to download films off the net and burn them on
a CD to be played in a DVD player? Any tips welcome.

K/

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Mailflow chart

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Do everything. The whole program flow. In 3D.

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 23 April 2002 17:26
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Mailflow chart

Possibly I could do one up right quick. Local, intrasite or extrasite? What
kind of site connectors?

- Original Message -
From: "Smith, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: Mailflow chart


>
> Does anyone have a chart that shows the minutia of mail flow steps in
> Exchange 5.5?
>
> Thanks!!!
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Switch to "Online"

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yeah, the way outlook handles online/offline is rubbish, especially what
happens if the connection to the server is lost.



-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 23 April 2002 16:32
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Switch to "Online"

In current versions? No.

> -Original Message-
> From: Davis,Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:32 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Switch to "Online"
> 
> 
> If you start Outlook (2000 or 2002) in the "Work offline" 
> mode, and the network connection or Exchange server becomes 
> available, is there a way to switch the mode that Outlook is 
> currently in without exiting and restarting Outlook? Thanks
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Delegating Admin Duties

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yep, works a treat. I've tested on a PC here - can run exchange admin, add
accounts but not modify or delete existing ones.

Yes, they will create accounts in their own NT domains (each site has a
domain and trusts are in place) and assign those to the mailboxes. Since
each admin is in a separate domain I can't put them in a group, but it's a
nice idea!

Dan.


-Original Message-
From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 23 April 2002 12:38
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Delegating Admin Duties

If all you want them to do is create new mailboxes.  That should do the
trick.  Just make sure you don't give them "Modify Permissions attributes".
Also make sure you are only giving this right on the recipients container.
To make this a little easier, create a domain global group for the remote
admins.  Add only that group and assign permissions to it.  That way when
you get a new 'remote' admin or one leaves you don't have to go dink around
in Exchange to modify permissions.  Just modify the group.

They do have rights to create new NT accounts, right?

--
Matthew
Exchange Disaster Recovery, Live it, Learn It, Love It, Get yours today!
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/exchange/technote/edrv3p1.asp

"Besides the technical limitations on the PST (remember the P stands for
Personal, that means you're responsible not the mail admin)..." Jim Schwartz
8-16-01



- Original Message -
From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: RE: Delegating Admin Duties


> Thanks matt,
>
> I'm thinking I might give the remote admins just the 'add child' right so
> they can create new accounts but not mess up existing ones.
>
> Dan.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 April 2002 12:11
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Delegating Admin Duties
>
> Daniel,
> You might be able to set some granularity by using custom roles and making
> sure you only give the rights that are necessary.  You might want to try
> Q261092 and Q168753 for a good jumping off point.  I believe the answer
will
> vary depending on what exactly you want the 'remote' admins to do.
>
> --
> Matthew
> Exchange Disaster Recovery, Live it, Learn It, Love It, Get yours today!
> http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/exchange/technote/edrv3p1.asp
>
> "Besides the technical limitations on the PST (remember the P stands for
> Personal, that means you're responsible not the mail admin)..." Jim
Schwartz
> 8-16-01
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:44 AM
> Subject: RE: Delegating Admin Duties
>
>
> > Sorry, 5.5 sp4.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 23 April 2002 11:47
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: Delegating Admin Duties
> >
> > What version of Exchange?
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:25 AM
> > Subject: Delegating Admin Duties
> >
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > We have a few sites around the country but they all access a central
> > > exchange server here at head office. I'm thinking about delegating
admin
> > > duties (i.e. creating new mailboxes) to the technical guys at each
site.
> > >
> > > Is there any best practice here? I know I could create separate
> recipients
> > > containers and assign appropriate permissions, but that would mess up
> the
> > > GAL. I heard that's not good practice anyway?
> > >
> > > I suppose I could give them permissions on the whole recipients
> container,
> > > but then they might mess up mailboxes that aren't for users on their
> site.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Dan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exch

RE: Delegating Admin Duties

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Thanks matt,

I'm thinking I might give the remote admins just the 'add child' right so
they can create new accounts but not mess up existing ones.

Dan.

-Original Message-
From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 23 April 2002 12:11
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Delegating Admin Duties

Daniel,
You might be able to set some granularity by using custom roles and making
sure you only give the rights that are necessary.  You might want to try
Q261092 and Q168753 for a good jumping off point.  I believe the answer will
vary depending on what exactly you want the 'remote' admins to do.

--
Matthew
Exchange Disaster Recovery, Live it, Learn It, Love It, Get yours today!
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/exchange/technote/edrv3p1.asp

"Besides the technical limitations on the PST (remember the P stands for
Personal, that means you're responsible not the mail admin)..." Jim Schwartz
8-16-01


- Original Message -
From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:44 AM
Subject: RE: Delegating Admin Duties


> Sorry, 5.5 sp4.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 April 2002 11:47
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Delegating Admin Duties
>
> What version of Exchange?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:25 AM
> Subject: Delegating Admin Duties
>
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > We have a few sites around the country but they all access a central
> > exchange server here at head office. I'm thinking about delegating admin
> > duties (i.e. creating new mailboxes) to the technical guys at each site.
> >
> > Is there any best practice here? I know I could create separate
recipients
> > containers and assign appropriate permissions, but that would mess up
the
> > GAL. I heard that's not good practice anyway?
> >
> > I suppose I could give them permissions on the whole recipients
container,
> > but then they might mess up mailboxes that aren't for users on their
site.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Delegating Admin Duties

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Sorry, 5.5 sp4.

-Original Message-
From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 23 April 2002 11:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Delegating Admin Duties

What version of Exchange?

- Original Message -
From: "Atkinson, Daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: Delegating Admin Duties


> Hi guys,
>
> We have a few sites around the country but they all access a central
> exchange server here at head office. I'm thinking about delegating admin
> duties (i.e. creating new mailboxes) to the technical guys at each site.
>
> Is there any best practice here? I know I could create separate recipients
> containers and assign appropriate permissions, but that would mess up the
> GAL. I heard that's not good practice anyway?
>
> I suppose I could give them permissions on the whole recipients container,
> but then they might mess up mailboxes that aren't for users on their site.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers
> Dan.
>
>
>
>
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Scanmail

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I never had any issues with exchange-aware apps on the SBS. They just see a
regular 5.5 server so I'm sure scanmail would be fine.

Might be worth mailing trend though.

dan

-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 23 April 2002 11:42
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scanmail

not much

-Original Message-
From: Matt Monteleone-Haught [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 April, 2002 12:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Scanmail


What does www.trendmicro.com say?


- Original Message - 
From: "Kim Schotanus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:01 AM
Subject: Scanmail


Hi, 

does scanmail works on SBS?
I believe SBS is built on NT4.0 and Exch5.5?

Kim

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Delegating Admin Duties

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Hi guys,
 
We have a few sites around the country but they all access a central
exchange server here at head office. I'm thinking about delegating admin
duties (i.e. creating new mailboxes) to the technical guys at each site. 
 
Is there any best practice here? I know I could create separate recipients
containers and assign appropriate permissions, but that would mess up the
GAL. I heard that's not good practice anyway?
 
I suppose I could give them permissions on the whole recipients container,
but then they might mess up mailboxes that aren't for users on their site.
 
Any thoughts?
 
Cheers
Dan.
 
 
 
 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: OWA Question

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Could this be the cached directory thing that also delays a change in
primary NT Account?

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q179065

dan


-Original Message-
From: Romeo, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 18 April 2002 18:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA Question

The delay, accourding to a Microsoft Tech I spoke with, can be up to 2
hours.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 1:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA Question


Thanks, Andy.

It's strange...all the existing users can access OWA without a problem.
Only new accounts can't.  I've reviewed everything in the q article(s)
but
no help.  I'm stumped.

Bill Lambert
Endoxy Healthcare
847-941-9206
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 


-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA Question


Q173470



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA Question


NT4 domain, Exchange 5.5

I've just created a new user and new mailbox for that user within the
last
15 minutes. In OWA, however, I get the message "OWA was unable get to
your
inbox". 
Is this because I need to wait and if so, why the delay?
TIA.




Bill Lambert
Network Consultant
Endoxy Healthcare
847-941-9206
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
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
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: OWA

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Give them the user rights to log on locally on the owa box.



-Original Message-
From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 15 April 2002 15:46
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA

Hello,

I created two new users and both cannot access their mailbox on OWA.
When I try to log in with their correct info I get unable to get you inbox.
Everyone elses works in my company it just doesnt work for the two new
profiles that i set up.  I have had this problem in the past but forgot how
to fix it.

Thanks 
Rich

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Requesting Data errors with SAN and Large Mailboxs

[Atkinson, Daniel]

We had similar problems with our SAN after adding some new disks and
assigning these to a separate non-exchange server - outlook started giving
lots of 'requesting data from server' messages and other apps using the SAN
for data storage also suffered poor performance.

A complete shutdown and restart of the SAN cured everything. A little
worrying, but that was six months ago and all is well and good since

Dan.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: PC Support

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yeah, well, how many technical experts are going to work as a first-line
phone jockey?


> I sense that through any of the brands the first level
> support people are just there to go through the very basic 
> troubleshooting and try to make you believe that there is 
> nothing really wrong with your pc. And I have had at least 
> one tech tell me that cheaper components are going into the computers.
> 
> It gets really frustrating wasting so much time on the phone
> that is just wasting your time. 
> 
> Bill Kuhl
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
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
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Addresses picked from GAL fail...

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Hi guys,

We have an exchange org with 2 sites. If a user in the UK site picks an
address of a user in the US site from the GAL, delivery fails with an NDR
like this...

The following recipient(s) could not be reached:

 
IMCEAEX-_O=SEVEN+20WORLDWIDE+2C+20INC+2E_OU=MIDWEST_cn=RECIPIENTS_cn=GEORGE+
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 28/03/2002 12:17
The recipient name is not recognized


If the user types the mailbox alias into the To: line instead of picking
from the GAL, it works fine...

Any ideas?

Dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Host Unreachable

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Forget the ping, it may well be discarded by a firewall. Telnet to the
remote mailserver on port 25 by typing this into the command line...

telnet mail.spectra.ca 25

if that fails try

telnet 24.85.12.237 25

if that works, look at your DNS. If it fails, phone your ISP.

Dan.




-Original Message-
From: Scott Force [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 26 March 2002 16:29
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Host Unreachable

I'm not at the site where I can ping from the Exchange server but I will
give that a shot this afternoon.  I have been having some intermitant DNS
issues so that must be it.  Thanks to all that replied.  Scott.


> I can get there from here.
> See if you can telnet to their mail server (mail.spectra.ca) FROM the
> exchange server. If you cant, you probably have some DNS issues.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Force [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 7:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Host Unreachable
> 
> 
> Good Morning,
>  I'm running Exchange 5.5/4 (NT4.0/6a).  I'm having problems sending
> e-mail to a specific domain, spectra.ca or spectraesolutions.com.  Any
> e-mail to those domains sits in my IMS outbound queue.  They can send to
me
> but when I reply I run into the same problem.  I've contacted the admin of
> that domain and he told me they are running Exchange 2000 and they are not
> requiring reverse DNS lookup.  Any thoughts?
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: only 6 Mb after online defrag

[Atkinson, Daniel]

For peace of mind I used to take a weekly offline backup on Saturday nights,
automating the stop/start of services with a batch file. After many
successful trial restores with online backups, I stopped doing it.

Restarting the services once in a while sounds like a good idea though - I
might schedule a job to do just that, say once a fortnight in the early
hours of Sunday morning.

Dan

-Original Message-
From: Alberto Faccioli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 19 March 2002 09:43
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: only 6 Mb after online defrag

During a recent call to PSS they recommended to stop/restart the store once
in a while.  

They said this is a better consistency/integrity check than an online
backup.  They scared me a little by saying that online backups don't verify
consistency/integrity as well as stopping /restarting the store, as I could
have had inconsistent online backups in good faith.

Is this a true story?  Should a 'wise' exchange admin also plan for weekly
stop/restart of exchange store?

Alberto


-Original Message-
From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: only 6 Mb after online defrag


No, keep the hands off. Leave the server running and never logon to the
console. That's what's make for a stable server.



-Original Message-
From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:15 PM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: only 6 Mb after online defrag
Subject: RE: only 6 Mb after online defrag


I've been trying to find out if there's some regular maintenace that
should ne performed on the Exchange server, ie. eseutil, isinteg etc.
Everything I've read so far is specific, and always warn against using
any of these utilities unless ther's a problem.  Anyone recommend
otherwise.

Thanks for clearing the up the white space 

 
Mario Fernandez
Network Administrator
DataSynapse
632 Broadway 5th Floor
New York, NY 10012
tel. (212) 842-8849
fax. (212) 842-8843
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

View the DataSynapse email disclaimer here:
  e-mail disclaimer  


-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 19:08
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: only 6 Mb after online defrag


White space = amount of unused space in your store, after
defragmentation Free space = amount of unused space on your hard drive

Exchange will go out and grab more free space when it needs to, up to
the limit of your hard drive, as the volume of messages stored on the
server grows in number.  As you delete user mailboxes however, and
Exchange defrags your Store, you will notice additional "white space."
Don't worry about it. Exchange will reuse it as more mail is stored on
your server.

Jim Blunt

-Original Message-
From: Mario Fernandez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: only 6 Mb after online defrag


After the OL defrag it says I only have 6Mb of free space. How do I
increase the store size?

 
Mario Fernandez
Network Administrator
DataSynapse
632 Broadway 5th Floor
New York, NY 10012
tel. (212) 842-8849
fax. (212) 842-8843
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  

View the DataSynapse email disclaimer here:
  e-mail disclaimer  


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__

RE: E2k Clustering

[Atkinson, Daniel]

> Yowza. Keep these posts coming. 
> They want to cluster here and I am fighting the good fight with these
>little snippets!

Well, the arguments are simple...

1. you have to do active/passive clustering, so you'll always have one
expensive server doing absolutely nothing. What a waste!

2. All you're protecting from is serious hardware failure, like the
motherboard blowing up. How often does that happen? You can build redundancy
in pretty much everywhere else on the server without clustering. Anyway, in
my experience, Exchange crashes are generally related to the databases and a
cluster is no help in that situation because all nodes share the same data.

3. The cluster service seems to do some strange things sometimes. During our
adventures into clustering, we had instances of the cluster simply
forgetting it's IP address or netbios name, total halt. 

4. Failover isn't that great anyway. During tests we found that some of our
outlook clients would simply freeze and not pick up the new server
immediately - sometimes a reboot would be needed. Some macintosh clients
would completely lock up and the retouch guy goes beserk because he's lost
his quark doc.

5. Clustering requires win2k advanced server, so it will cost more to
license.

6. Having a good recovery server and DR plan means you can run loads of good
stuff on the recovery box when not in use for recovery, plus you can use it
for restoring mailboxes that your junior admin deleted.

I'm sure there's more...

dan

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: E2k Clustering

[Atkinson, Daniel]

My production server is a high-spec DELL box with plenty of redundancy built
in. I have an identical recovery server which when not needed for recovery
purposes runs slave DNS, secondary WINS, monitoring for the production
server etc. We have a SAN for the directory and store data, with lots of
redundancy built-in. In the event of some motherboard failure etc I can copy
a disk image of the system drive onto the recovery server so that it is
exactly the same as the production server (takes about 5 mins) and then
point this at the SAN for data.

It's not as fast as a cluster failover but we had so many problems with that
it was unreal. Since going back to standalone servers I have had 100%
uptime, and sleep easy at night.

Dan 
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 14 March 2002 14:13
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k Clustering

Missy,

If you would not recommend clustering, what do you recommend for high 
availablility environments?

Dennis Depp

At 11:17 AM 3/13/2002 -0500, missy koslosky wrote:
>While I'm really not into arguing the point, while some people at Compaq
>and/or MS might recommend A/A over A/P, not everyone would.
>
>And yes, I'm one of the ones at Compaq who would recommend A/P if I had
>a client that was dead set on clustering.  But I'd try to talk them out
>of clustering if at all possible.
>
>Missy
>- Original Message -
>From: "Sabo, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:00 AM
>Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
>
>
>I talked to compaq/microsoft today, I am confident in our situation here
>that an active/active is the right choice for us.
>
>Currently we have the following:
>Server no. 1 - Quad Pentium Pro 200 MHZ (very old chipset technology) -
>1 MEG cache on each processor - 2 GB RAM: (800 mailboxes/heavy users)
>The most I ever saw the processor level was at 50% usage, most of the
>time it is around 10%-20% usage
>
>Server no. 2 - dual Pentium III 500 MHZ Xeon Processor - 2 Meg cache on
>each processor - 2 GB RAM (6000 mailboxes/light users)- The most I ever
>saw these processors was at 35%, most of the time it is around 5%-10%
>
>
>We are going to the following:
>Two servers running w2k adv sp2 e2k sp2 - Quad Pentium III Xeon 700
>MHZ - 2 MB cache of each processor- 3 GB physical RAM using a
>Storageworks San solution.
>
>I would say these machines should run around 5-10% CPU usage.
>
>
>Eric Sabo
>NT Administrator
>Computing Services Center
>California University of Pennsylvania
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:59 AM
>To: Exchange Discussions
>Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
>
>
>Use Active/Passive clusters when possible to increase scalability and
>reduce failover times. Active/Active clusters are only supported in
>2-node configurations in which each node has a maximum of 40 percent
>loading and 1900 simultaneous users.
>
>"Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 2 Deployment Guide"
>
>In short, there are NO issues when running in Active/Passive, but when
>running in Active/Active you have a high chance of a failover failing
>because of memory fragmentation. Active/Passive is going to provide you
>with high reliability failover. Active/Active is going to cause grief.
>
>
>Let me turn the tables, why do you think that Active/Active is better
>than Active/Passive?
>
>
>Ed
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Posted At: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:38 AM
>Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
>Conversation: E2k Clustering
>Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
>
>
>Hi there
>
>I was looking over the white paper, and according to Microsoft, both
>active/passive and active/active are recommended in the below listed
>whitepaper.  Do you have access to information that suggests otherwise??
>
>Thanks
>
>Russell
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:51 PM
>To: Exchange Discussions
>Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
>
>
>Make it Active/Passive as recommended and it's a moot point.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Posted At: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 5:42 PM
>Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
>Conversation: E2k Clustering
>Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
>
>
>When they talk about concurrent connections, does microsoft mean if one
>users is using a mapi client that would mean 3 connections there for
>just one user.  Is this correct?
>
>Eric Sabo
>NT Administrator
>Computing Services Center
>California University of Pennsylvania
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:20 PM
>To: Exchange Discussions
>Subject: RE: E2k Clustering
>
>
>Hi there
>
>According to the MS whitepaper, here are the limits for active / active:
>
>"After you deploy your cluster, make sure you do the following:
>
>Limit the number

RE: Online backup of Exchange 5.5 with Veritas BE 8.5

[Atkinson, Daniel]

> He doesnt need the Exchange Agent to do an online Exchange-aware backup of
> the store. 

Really, how? I think the exchange options are greyed out in our backup exec
until you install the agent. 

Dan

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: haiku friday

[Atkinson, Daniel]

thanks for kind words guys
sorry no more jobs here now
maybe one day though!

> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 February 2002 15:22
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: haiku friday
> 
> 
> I have to ask you
> if there are any more jobs
> with cars where you work
> 
> Lucky devil!
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 08 February 2002 15:07
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: haiku friday
> > 
> > 
> > review yesterday
> > got a company car now
> > plus salary raise
> > 
> > :)
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

haiku friday

[Atkinson, Daniel]

review yesterday
got a company car now
plus salary raise

:)

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Automatically printing eMAILs

[Atkinson, Daniel]

in england, the 'home secretary' is perhaps the most powerful person in the
country, moreso than the prime minister in many ways.

a secretary is also a kind of bookcase, i believe.


> That sounds like nonsense.  Colin Powell doesn't seem to be terribly
> offended to be called that.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer Corporation
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of 
> Blunt, James H
> (Jim)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:27 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Automatically printing eMAILs
> 
> 
> That, and the fact that there are a lot more males in the "Personal
> Assistant" field than there used to be and they took offense at being
> called a secretary...even though that's really what they are.
> 
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

i have, curling rules. i always wanted to have a go at the sweeping...they
go mental with those little brooms...


> I haven't seen a good curling match in years  =)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:57 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> actually, we very much understand baseball. it's almost identical to a
> traditional english sport called 'rounders' - except this is 
> mainly played
> in school by girls.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 16:32
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > It's pretty popular in Latin America, Japan and Taiwan as 
> > well.  Nobody
> > expects you to understand it any more than we understand Cricket.
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> > Tech Consultant
> > Compaq Computer Corporation
> > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:40 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > A man convinced against his will,
> > Is of the same opinion still.
> > 
> > You're all right and you're all wrong.
> > 
> > However, I still don't understand the "world series" baseball, or
> > whatever it's called, that only has 1 country playing it (or is it 2
> > with Canada?)  :-)
> > 
> > Neil Hobson
> > 
> > Silversands
> > http://www.silversands.co.uk
> > Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
> > For Enterprise Systems
> > For Collaborative Solutions
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kishore Vara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Posted At: 04 February 2002 15:30
> > Posted To: Exchange Mailing List
> > Conversation: The day after superbowl
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > You might change your mind if you watch Manchester United play..
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 15:24
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately football/soccer is also boring.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> > Daniel
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:07 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth 
> watching is the
> > one that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based 
> around using
> > your feet to kick the ball...
> > 
> > seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a bit
> > stop-start and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.
> > 
> > > 
> > > The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> > > 
> > > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards
> > > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Who won?
> > > 
> > > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards
> > > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

actually, we very much understand baseball. it's almost identical to a
traditional english sport called 'rounders' - except this is mainly played
in school by girls.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 16:32
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> It's pretty popular in Latin America, Japan and Taiwan as 
> well.  Nobody
> expects you to understand it any more than we understand Cricket.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer Corporation
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 7:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> A man convinced against his will,
> Is of the same opinion still.
> 
> You're all right and you're all wrong.
> 
> However, I still don't understand the "world series" baseball, or
> whatever it's called, that only has 1 country playing it (or is it 2
> with Canada?)  :-)
> 
> Neil Hobson
> 
> Silversands
> http://www.silversands.co.uk
> Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
> For Enterprise Systems
> For Collaborative Solutions
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kishore Vara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Posted At: 04 February 2002 15:30
> Posted To: Exchange Mailing List
> Conversation: The day after superbowl
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> You might change your mind if you watch Manchester United play..
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:24
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Unfortunately football/soccer is also boring.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> Daniel
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:07 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth watching is the
> one that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based around using
> your feet to kick the ball...
> 
> seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a bit
> stop-start and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.
> 
> > 
> > The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> > 
> > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards
> > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Who won?
> > 
> > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards
> > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:50 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > No change there then.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Mr Louis Joyce
> > Network Support Analyst
> > Exchange Administrator
> > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 14:20
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Just sitting here starring at the computer screen.  Feels like some 
> > took my Brain out of my head and just poured Budweiser on in all 
> > night.
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> 

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

this is wierd...the last time i played golf, my brother broke one of his
clubs playing a shot from the rough, freaked out and chucked it in a lake!


> The last time I played golf, my brother in law started a 
> fight with his
> clubs after they caused him to play completely crap.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mr Louis Joyce
> Network Support Analyst
> Exchange Administrator
> BT Ignite eSolutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:50
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> The last time I played golf, my brother started a fight on one of the
> fairways.  It was a most hilarious, and alcohol-free, afternoon
> experience!
> 
> Neil Hobson
> 
> Silversands
> http://www.silversands.co.uk
> Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
> For Enterprise Systems
> For Collaborative Solutions
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Musheno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Posted At: 04 February 2002 15:48
> Posted To: Exchange Mailing List
> Conversation: The day after superbowl
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Golf, like skiing, requires mass quantities of alcohol to become an
> enjoyable experience.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Allan Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> did everyone stop playing golf suddenly?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:16 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> yes, that's why it's the most popular sport in the world.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 15:24
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately football/soccer is also boring.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Atkinson, 
> > Daniel
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:07 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth
> > watching is the one
> > that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based around 
> > using your feet
> > to kick the ball...
> > 
> > seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a
> > bit stop-start
> > and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.
> > 
> > > 
> > > The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> > > 
> > > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Who won?
> > > 
> > > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:50 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > No change there then.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Mr Louis Joyce
> > > Network Support Analyst
> > > Exchange Administrator
> > > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

popular misconception. i believe it was named 'world series' after the
sponsors, not the fact that it's a world league. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:40
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> A man convinced against his will,
> Is of the same opinion still.
> 
> You're all right and you're all wrong.
> 
> However, I still don't understand the "world series" baseball, or
> whatever it's called, that only has 1 country playing it (or is it 2
> with Canada?)  :-)
> 
> Neil Hobson
> 
> Silversands
> http://www.silversands.co.uk
> Microsoft Gold Certified Partner
> For Enterprise Systems
> For Collaborative Solutions
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kishore Vara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Posted At: 04 February 2002 15:30
> Posted To: Exchange Mailing List
> Conversation: The day after superbowl
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> You might change your mind if you watch Manchester United play..
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:24
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Unfortunately football/soccer is also boring.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> Daniel
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:07 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth watching is the
> one that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based around using
> your feet to kick the ball...
> 
> seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a bit
> stop-start and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.
> 
> > 
> > The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> > 
> > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Who won?
> > 
> > John Matteson; Exchange Manager
> > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:50 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > No change there then.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Mr Louis Joyce
> > Network Support Analyst
> > Exchange Administrator
> > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 14:20
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Just sitting here starring at the computer screen.  Feels
> > like some took my
> > Brain out of my head and just poured Budweiser on in all night.  
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exc

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

ha, i knew that would come back. ok, replace 'sport' with 'team sport'


> -Original Message-
> From: Allan Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:42
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> did everyone stop playing golf suddenly?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:16 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> yes, that's why it's the most popular sport in the world.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 15:24
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Unfortunately football/soccer is also boring.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> > Daniel
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:07 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth 
> > watching is the one
> > that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based around 
> > using your feet
> > to kick the ball...
> > 
> > seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a 
> > bit stop-start
> > and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.
> > 
> > > 
> > > The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> > > 
> > > John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
> > > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Who won?
> > > 
> > > John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
> > > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:50 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > No change there then.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Mr Louis Joyce
> > > Network Support Analyst
> > > Exchange Administrator
> > > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 04 February 2002 14:20
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: The day after superbowl
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Just sitting here starring at the computer screen.  Feels 
> > > like some took my
> > > Brain out of my head and just poured Budweiser on in all night.  
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/r

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

yes, that's why it's the most popular sport in the world.

> -Original Message-
> From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:24
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Unfortunately football/soccer is also boring.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> Daniel
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 8:07 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth 
> watching is the one
> that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based around 
> using your feet
> to kick the ball...
> 
> seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a 
> bit stop-start
> and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.
> 
> > 
> > The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> > 
> > John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
> > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Who won?
> > 
> > John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
> > Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> > (404) 239 - 2981 
> > My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:50 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > No change there then.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Mr Louis Joyce
> > Network Support Analyst
> > Exchange Administrator
> > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 14:20
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: The day after superbowl
> > 
> > 
> > Just sitting here starring at the computer screen.  Feels 
> > like some took my
> > Brain out of my head and just poured Budweiser on in all night.  
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:

RE: The day after superbowl

[Atkinson, Daniel]

haha, correction - the only 'real football' game worth watching is the one
that actually _is_ football, you know, the one based around using your feet
to kick the ball...

seriously, i do really like 'american football', but it's a bit stop-start
and there are way too many stats and ad-breaks.

> 
> The only real football game worth watching any more is Army-Navy.
> 
> John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
> Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> (404) 239 - 2981 
> My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Patriots (finally a sports team to celebrate in boston) :)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:54 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Who won?
> 
> John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
> Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
> (404) 239 - 2981 
> My toys! My toys! I can't do this job without my toys! 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:50 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> No change there then.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mr Louis Joyce
> Network Support Analyst
> Exchange Administrator
> BT Ignite eSolutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 14:20
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: The day after superbowl
> 
> 
> Just sitting here starring at the computer screen.  Feels 
> like some took my
> Brain out of my head and just poured Budweiser on in all night.  
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: adding exchange

[Atkinson, Daniel]

if you mean, 'add an additional exchange server to an existing exchange
site', just run the installer on your new hardware and follow the wizard. it
takes about five minutes.



> Does anyone know how to add an additional exchange server too 
> a existing
> exchange server.
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Public Folders and OST

[Atkinson, Daniel]

like a few things in exchange/outlook, you have to do it one at a time
(yaaawn zz)



> -Original Message-
> From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 17 January 2002 15:52
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Public Folders and OST
> 
> 
> Hopefully last question:
> 
> What if the Public folder has subfolders?
> 1. How do you get them in the favorites?
> 2. do you have to set offline for each subfolder?
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua Morgan
> PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:46 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Public Folders and OST
> 
> 
> right click the folder under your favourites, bring up 
> properties, go to
> synchronization tab, configure...
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 17 January 2002 15:41
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Public Folders and OST
> > 
> > 
> > SO iset for Offline use in the OST Stuff ( where I would set
> > other Custom
> > made folders) ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Joshua Morgan
> > PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:33 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Public Folders and OST
> > 
> > 
> > No, there's always the potential for 2 way replication based
> > on permissions
> > to the folder. Synchronization is achieved by adding the said 
> > PF to the PF
> > 'favorites' and then marking the folders as available for 
> offline use.
> > 
> > HTH,
> > 
> > Chris
> > --
> > Chris Scharff
> > Senior Sales Engineer
> > MessageOne
> > If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:34 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Public Folders and OST
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Can 'Public Folders' be allowed to sync to an offline copy ? This 
> > > would always be one way: down to a laptop
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > Joshua Morgan
> > > PROFITLAB
> > > Network Engineer
> > > PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > "One is glad to be of service "
> > > --Robin Williams ( Millennium Man)--
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Public Folders and OST

[Atkinson, Daniel]

right click the folder under your favourites, bring up properties, go to
synchronization tab, configure...

> -Original Message-
> From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 17 January 2002 15:41
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Public Folders and OST
> 
> 
> SO iset for Offline use in the OST Stuff ( where I would set 
> other Custom
> made folders) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua Morgan
> PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Public Folders and OST
> 
> 
> No, there's always the potential for 2 way replication based 
> on permissions
> to the folder. Synchronization is achieved by adding the said 
> PF to the PF
> 'favorites' and then marking the folders as available for offline use.
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> Chris Scharff
> Senior Sales Engineer
> MessageOne
> If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:34 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Public Folders and OST
> > 
> > 
> > Can 'Public Folders' be allowed to sync to an offline copy ?
> > This would always be one way: down to a laptop
> > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > Joshua Morgan
> > PROFITLAB
> > Network Engineer
> > PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > "One is glad to be of service "
> > --Robin Williams ( Millennium Man)--
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: clustering wireless

[Atkinson, Daniel]

exchange + mscs = sleep deprivation

look forward to cluster services failing for no apparent reason, exchange
services not responding properly to actions in cluster administrator,
dubious failover etc etc

in 4 months with the cluster we had plenty of downtime during working hours,
terrible. Since trashing the cluster and using the two servers as seperate
exchange servers in the same site, we've had no downtime, and both servers
are busy delivering mail instead of one just sitting there waiting to not
work when called upon.

while i'm on the subject, does anyone know the correct way to get exchange
databases (particularly the directory i think) to forget that they are part
of a clustered exchange server? . The problem is that the IMS won't install
on a clean, non-clustered exchange server with restored databases from a
clustered exchange server. It throws an error saying the cluster services
aren't installed, so there must be something in the databases that tells
exchange it should be on a cluster.

i couldn't figure it out, so ended up migrating users to another server
using ed's server move method.

dan.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange 2000 AV Roundup

[Atkinson, Daniel]

norton wins? are they mad?

symantec are too slow with their updates, hours behind trend during recent
outbreaks.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Troublesome IMS

[Atkinson, Daniel]

is this essential? i just checked our pix and smtp fixup is enabled - i'm
not aware of any problems though...


> -Original Message-
> From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 16 January 2002 12:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Troublesome IMS
> 
> 
> Cisco PIX?  No SMTP fixup
> 
> >>>-Original Message-
> >>>From: Earl, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:21 AM
> >>>To: Exchange Discussions
> >>>Subject: Troublesome IMS
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  Hello all,
>  
>  Our Exchange server is suffering from a problem where a 
> mail gets 
>  delivered, but the mail sticks in the IMS's 'Outbound mail 
> >>>awaiting 
>  delivery' queue with '(host unreachable)' next to it. This 
> >>>results in 
>  the IMS retrying to redeliver the mail at the set 
> >>>intervals and the 
>  somewhat annoyed recipient receiving multiple copies of 
> >>>the mail until 
>  it expires. This only happens occasionally - most mail 
> >>>goes out fine. 
>  I have noticed that is does happen to one email that gets sent 
>  regularly from one of our users to an external mailbox.
>  I have tried using nslookup from the server and can telnet 
> >>>in to port 25
>  of the other servers without a problem.
>  
>  Our box is set up as follows:
>  
>  NT4, Sp6a, PIII, 3 processors, 1gb mem.
>  Exchange 5.5 sp4 (configured as per Q181420 - 'How to Configure 
>  Exchange or other SMTP with Proxy Server') Network Associates 
>  GroupShield (Antivirus Server Extension: 4.5.572.171 & 
> >>>Server Admin 
>  Extension: 4.5.572.128) Network Associates Netshield 4.5.0 
> >>>(with the 
>  recommended Exchange directories excluded from scanning).
>  
>  I also had the Network Associates Message Body Scanning 
> >>>tool installed 
>  but thought this might have been contributing to the 
> problem so I 
>  removed it a few months ago, but the problem sill continues.
>  
>  Any ideas?
>  
>  Many thanks,
>  
>  Daniel.
>  
>  
> >>>This e-mail may contain proprietary and confidential 
> >>>information, and is intended for the named recipient(s) only. 
> >>>If you are not one of the named recipients, then disclosure, 
> >>>distribution, copying or printing of this e-mail is strictly 
> >>>prohibited and it must be deleted. 
> >>>Additionally you should notify the sender of the 
> distribution error. 
> >>>Heal's will not accept any liability or responsibility for the 
> >>>completeness or accuracy of its contents and attachments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>_
> >>>List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> >>>Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> >>>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: IS Maintenance

[Atkinson, Daniel]

mine is set to run early hours when the backup finishes. 

dan.

> -Original Message-
> From: Chad Gibson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 January 2002 17:19
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: IS Maintenance
> 
> 
> What is the best practice for IS maintenance??  Do you have it run
> everyday, twice a week?  Also do you switch the view to 15 
> minute and just
> add a block to the time you want IS maintenace to start??
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Legal Question.......

[Atkinson, Daniel]

tell them you can show them how to access mailboxes if they want you to, but
also tell them that there might be legal implications that they should check
with their human resources people or the company lawyers. 

if you're not qualified to offer legal advice, then they should know that,
and shouldn't expect you to.

dan.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 January 2002 16:41
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Legal Question...
> 
> 
> All, 
> 
> I have pretty much been lurking on this list for awhile now.
> I really respect the Technical opinions that most have offered,
> Not to mention, the biting sarcasm keeps me in fits of laughter.
> 
> That Said, I have a client that has asked me a question that I don't
> Have the legal expertise to answer, and was curious if 
> 
> 1. Any of you have dealt with a similar experience and 
> 2. Could point me to a specific, reference in writing.
> 
> I was recently approached by my client to get access to one of their
> employees email. I told them to hold off, I would have to 
> check if I was
> legally able to do that for them. The equipment is owned by 
> my client. There
> is Policy in the employee handbook states that Email is for 
> business use
> only. My client has reason to believe an employee is sending corporate
> information, (vendor lists and pricing) Offsite to someone 
> outside their
> company. My client and I both reside in the U.S., in the 
> state of Maryland.
> Does anyone know what the legal ramifications of viewing/reviewing an
> employees email are?  
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Need advice from the Gurus (mobile users question)

[Atkinson, Daniel]

use Outlook as it's intended - as an exchange client, not imap or pop3. then
you get all the collaborative features of exchange (scheduling, public
folders, custom forms etc etc). without this you're not really justifying
the outlay for exchange.

give the laptop users offline folders and set up OWA for when users go to
other computers. don't bother with roaming profiles, major headache imo.

get a good exchange book and read up - pay particular attention to disaster
recovery.

dan.

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 January 2002 16:30
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Need advice from the Gurus (mobile users question)
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Our present scenario is the following:  Corporate users, that have
> a PC on their desk.  These users, *may* travel to another location in
> which they will use a PC sitting on someone else's desk.  And about
> half of these employees will have a laptop - in which they work from
> home, and travel on the road.  Either way, they need to have access
> to all new mail that comes in, in addition to all their old mail,
> so they can always have the ability to refer to any old messages.
> 
> In all of these cases, they need access to their e-mail.  Before we
> installed our Exchange Server, we were using POP3 access exclusively
> and as we all know, POP3 clients typically pull their mail from the
> server, when retrieving their messages.  Yes, you CAN set things up
> to leave their mail on the server, but things get funny once in a
> while, and their mail clients lose track of what messages they have
> already retrieved from the server, versus which ones they already
> have on their hard drive. (so sometimes, they have like a 1,000 new
> messages, when in reality they only have a few new ones)  I am sick
> of dealing with that problem - because it happens way too often.
> 
> Also, some people accidentally leave their machines on when they go
> home at night.  All just to go home and find out that they have no
> new messages - because their office PC steals all their e-mail.
> 
> We just migrated our users from Ipswitch's IMail server, to our new
> Exchange Box - and the above reasons are why we decided to do this.
> I am very impressed with Exchange Server - although it is quite
> complex, I believe it's the answer to all our problems.
> 
> NOW this is where I need your help.  I was thinking about doing the
> following:
> 
> Get rid of POP3 altogether, and use IMAP from now on.  This way, the
> laptop users can still take all their mail with them when they travel
> and still have their old mail they can refer to if they are unable to
> get online to connect to the server.
> 
> I believe IMAP allows you to synchronize your local mail with the mail
> on the server correct?  Also, for corporate users with their 
> own laptop
> OR those that only have access to a public terminal - I was thinking
> that they could use OWA to handle all of their e-mail issues.  And
> the fact that all mail remains on the server at all times, no matter
> which method the employees use to get their e-mail, the mail will
> always be there for them.
> 
> So bottom line is - IMAP and OWA correct?  Are there any 
> other suggestions
> that anybody can offer to help tackle this problem?
> 
> Thanks in advance - and sorry for the long post,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

i have looked at version control software and it's a nice idea but it's not
quite applicable to what we're doing and also the kind of thing that would
never happen - too much change required, training, cost, getting clients and
vendors involved - urgh.

dan.

> You should look into version control software for better 
> control. It will
> also help to cut down on the amount of data you store. One 
> copy vs many
> copies of a document. It will also help you track who checked 
> out and made
> changes to docs and allow you to revert back quickly to older 
> versions if
> needed. If you can tie it back into the Exchange system then 
> you'll be the
> hero.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Atkinson, Daniel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent:   Tuesday, January 15, 2002 10:02 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject:RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > 
> > hi jim,
> > 
> > you make some good points, but it's a little different 
> here. We're a media
> > company - advertising, prepress, web solutions. A lot of 
> document traffic
> > is
> > PDF's, quark documents - artwork revisions etc. It's very 
> useful for our
> > staff to keep this data in Outlook, because it provides an 
> audit trail
> > without having to do anything. For example, someone recieves a file,
> > amends
> > and sends it back. Their inbox holds a copy of the 
> original, at the date,
> > time etc when it was sent and received. Their sent items records the
> > amended
> > document and when it was returned. This is a simplified 
> example - some of
> > our consultants and mac operators have quite complex communication
> > patterns
> > with many agencies, printers etc and keeping it all 
> together in Outlook is
> > very efficient for them. 
> > 
> > dan.
> > 
> > 
> > > For the most part you don't need to keep either of the 
> > > messages. What I've
> > > been beating people over the head here is that I don't care 
> > > that you have an
> > > e-mail from 3 years ago stating that we would switch to Fubar 
> > > Software. If
> > > it's part of meeting, then it needs to be in the meeting 
> > > minutes. If it was
> > > part of a project, then it needs to be part of the project 
> > > documentation.
> > > Most users will tell you they are keeping e-mail so they 
> can CYA. Bull
> > > biscuits. 
> > > 
> > > What are the attachments in the e-mails? Memo's? 
> > > Documentation? Budgets? All
> > > of this should be published to a public folder or an intranet 
> > > and links sent
> > > via e-mail. Go through you're e-mail, check the attachments 
> > > and see what you
> > > have. How much of that information is repeated again and 
> again in your
> > > environment? Exchange was never meant to be a storage and 
> > > retrieval system. 
> > > 
> > > Of course all of the about is a behavioral issue, so there is 
> > > not much we
> > > can do about it other than to educate the users.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From:   Atkinson, Daniel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent:   Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:52 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject:RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > > > 
> > > > I don't understand your solution Ed. You're saying to 
> keep the IS
> > > > manageable, get everyone to use OST's and save off 
> > > attachments? OST's
> > > > aren't
> > > > for archiving, they mirror the store - no space saved. Why 
> > > get users to
> > > > pull
> > > > attachments out of exchange to disparate locations on the 
> > > network? No
> > > > backup, no owa access, no SIS, no 'audit trail' of their 
> > > work, big pain in
> > > > the butt (saving several attachments from a message SUCKS!).
> > > > 
> > > > Ideally I'd like exchange to do the archiving job for me, 
> > > but Microsoft
> > > > likes leaving out useful features to perpetuate the third 
> > > party add-on
> > > > market. So, I could have a really good third party archiver 
> > > that puts old
> > > > data down to optical disk or something, but that's not 
> > > going to happen
> > > > here
> > > > for now so we&#x

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

hi jim,

you make some good points, but it's a little different here. We're a media
company - advertising, prepress, web solutions. A lot of document traffic is
PDF's, quark documents - artwork revisions etc. It's very useful for our
staff to keep this data in Outlook, because it provides an audit trail
without having to do anything. For example, someone recieves a file, amends
and sends it back. Their inbox holds a copy of the original, at the date,
time etc when it was sent and received. Their sent items records the amended
document and when it was returned. This is a simplified example - some of
our consultants and mac operators have quite complex communication patterns
with many agencies, printers etc and keeping it all together in Outlook is
very efficient for them. 

dan.


> For the most part you don't need to keep either of the 
> messages. What I've
> been beating people over the head here is that I don't care 
> that you have an
> e-mail from 3 years ago stating that we would switch to Fubar 
> Software. If
> it's part of meeting, then it needs to be in the meeting 
> minutes. If it was
> part of a project, then it needs to be part of the project 
> documentation.
> Most users will tell you they are keeping e-mail so they can CYA. Bull
> biscuits. 
> 
> What are the attachments in the e-mails? Memo's? 
> Documentation? Budgets? All
> of this should be published to a public folder or an intranet 
> and links sent
> via e-mail. Go through you're e-mail, check the attachments 
> and see what you
> have. How much of that information is repeated again and again in your
> environment? Exchange was never meant to be a storage and 
> retrieval system. 
> 
> Of course all of the about is a behavioral issue, so there is 
> not much we
> can do about it other than to educate the users.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From:   Atkinson, Daniel [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent:   Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:52 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject:RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > 
> > I don't understand your solution Ed. You're saying to keep the IS
> > manageable, get everyone to use OST's and save off 
> attachments? OST's
> > aren't
> > for archiving, they mirror the store - no space saved. Why 
> get users to
> > pull
> > attachments out of exchange to disparate locations on the 
> network? No
> > backup, no owa access, no SIS, no 'audit trail' of their 
> work, big pain in
> > the butt (saving several attachments from a message SUCKS!).
> > 
> > Ideally I'd like exchange to do the archiving job for me, 
> but Microsoft
> > likes leaving out useful features to perpetuate the third 
> party add-on
> > market. So, I could have a really good third party archiver 
> that puts old
> > data down to optical disk or something, but that's not 
> going to happen
> > here
> > for now so we'll stick to users archiving to PST's, and if 
> people want to
> > put these on net drives to back them up I really don't see 
> a problem.
> > 
> > dan.
> > 
> > > Add to the OST idea teaching your users how to remove 
> attachments from
> > > e-mail they feel they must save.
> > > 
> > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> > > Tech Consultant
> > > Compaq Computer
> > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral 
> > > problems."
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 
> > > Atkinson, Daniel
> > > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:10 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > > 
> > > 
> > > thanks for your comment ed.
> > > 
> > > i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would 
> > > just be mirrors
> > > of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not 
> what's needed
> > > here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the 
> > > store limit and
> > > can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be 
> used in this
> > > manner.
> > > 
> > > am i missing something about offline folders?
> > > 
> > > dan.
> > > 
> > > > I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I 
> suggest that
> > > > offline folders might be more appropriate.
> > > >
> > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcC

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

I don't understand your solution Ed. You're saying to keep the IS
manageable, get everyone to use OST's and save off attachments? OST's aren't
for archiving, they mirror the store - no space saved. Why get users to pull
attachments out of exchange to disparate locations on the network? No
backup, no owa access, no SIS, no 'audit trail' of their work, big pain in
the butt (saving several attachments from a message SUCKS!).

Ideally I'd like exchange to do the archiving job for me, but Microsoft
likes leaving out useful features to perpetuate the third party add-on
market. So, I could have a really good third party archiver that puts old
data down to optical disk or something, but that's not going to happen here
for now so we'll stick to users archiving to PST's, and if people want to
put these on net drives to back them up I really don't see a problem.

dan.

> Add to the OST idea teaching your users how to remove attachments from
> e-mail they feel they must save.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral 
> problems."
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 
> Atkinson, Daniel
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 8:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> thanks for your comment ed.
> 
> i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would 
> just be mirrors
> of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not what's needed
> here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the 
> store limit and
> can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be used in this
> manner.
> 
> am i missing something about offline folders?
> 
> dan.
> 
> > I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I suggest that
> > offline folders might be more appropriate.
> >
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> > Tech Consultant
> > Compaq Computer Corporation
> > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> > Daniel
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:52 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> >
> >
> > ok, check this pst scenario:
> >
> > exchange site in uk, 450 users, 400mb mailbox limit, 30gb store.
> >
> > servers are located in london, remote sites in northern 
> cities connect
> > via 2mbps links.
> >
> > users often hit the mailbox limit and have to archive to pst.
> > in london,
> > they just move items to a pst on their local disk, and we
> > make sure that
> > they understand their data is no longer available via OWA 
> or backed up
> > nightly.
> >
> > in the northern cities, the techs have put the PST's onto network
> > drives. i immediately yelled "pst on net drives = bad" but their
> > philosophy is that they have plentiful disk space on their
> > file servers
> > and a fast network, so they do this to gain the advantage of
> > backing up
> > the pst's.
> >
> > i can't think of any good reason to persuade them to store
> > the pst's on
> > local hard drives, and i think that's because there isn't one.
> >
> > dan.
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 11 January 2002 06:11
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject:  RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > >
> > >
> > > That's fine [1] but keep them off file servers.
> > >
> > > [1] not really
> > >
> > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> > > Tech Consultant
> > > Compaq Computer
> > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral
> > > problems."
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Cook, David A.
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:34 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > >
> > >
> > > I have read all those things about PST=BAD and I have used
> > > all of those.
> > > I gave my suggestion of do not allow any PSTs and I was 
> told that we
> > > have to allow PSTs. The reasons is the b

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

yes, we did look into archiving products and a couple of them looked really
good, but they were really expensive and we couldn't justify the cost
following the initial outlay for server hardware and licensing. it's
something i'm considering for the future, however.

dan.

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Ko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 January 2002 21:44
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> You may want to look into Archive software so you don't have 
> to support
> PST yet your IS is small enough that you don't waste your time waiting
> when you have to do something with your IS.
> 
> Brian
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> Daniel
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> Yes, storage space is more expensive on the exchange server 
> because it's
> on a SAN, but that's not the point. We have a 400mb mailbox limit for
> good reasons. We don't want the information store to grow too large,
> otherwise restore times get too long and you can't quickly take a copy
> of the store to another drive to try some eseutil or similar 
> when there
> are problems. I firmly believe in keeping the store at a manageable,
> copyable and quickly restorable size. 
> 
> I've recently faced an exchange restore situation with an 80gb
> information store from an online backup, and we had to wait several
> hours before we could even begin to work with the inconsistent
> databases. Not good.
> 
> So, 'power users' who want 400mb+ have to archive somewhere. 
> OST's don't
> perform this function according to my understanding, so it has to be
> PST's. As i said, here in London our guys just leave the PST's on the
> local hard drive, but our friends in the north choose to keep them on
> file servers where there's a nightly backup. 
> 
> So, it seems they've shown me a use of PST's on net drives where no
> viable alternative exists to achieve the same result, namely, to
> maintain mailbox limits and thus a manageable store while 
> allowing users
> to archive their data where it will get backed up.
> 
> is there a better way?
> 
> dan.
> 
> > Dan,
> > 
> > You're right, offline folders wouldn't help alleviate the 
> mailbox size
> 
> > restriction problem..
> > 
> > There's still the question:  Is storage space on your file 
> server less
> 
> > expensive than on your Exchange server?  If there's a good 
> reason that
> 
> > some users need more than 400 Mb worth of storage space, why make
> > them split
> > things into PST's?
> > 
> > PST's on file servers aren't "bad" per-say, just a waste of 
> time and 
> > resources and a potential headache for the admin...
> > 
> > Joe Pochedley
> > "I like deadlines,"
> > cartoonist Scott Adams once said. 
> > "I especially like the whooshing 
> > sound they make as they fly by."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > 
> > 
> > thanks for your comment ed.
> > 
> > i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would
> > just be mirrors
> > of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not what's needed
> > here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the 
> > store limit and
> > can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be 
> used in this
> > manner. 
> > 
> > am i missing something about offline folders?
> > 
> > dan.
> > 
> > > I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I suggest that
> > > offline folders might be more appropriate.
> > > 
> > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> > > Tech Consultant
> > > Compaq Computer Corporation
> > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> > > Daniel
> > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:52 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > > 
> > >

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

Yes, storage space is more expensive on the exchange server because it's on
a SAN, but that's not the point. We have a 400mb mailbox limit for good
reasons. We don't want the information store to grow too large, otherwise
restore times get too long and you can't quickly take a copy of the store to
another drive to try some eseutil or similar when there are problems. I
firmly believe in keeping the store at a manageable, copyable and quickly
restorable size. 

I've recently faced an exchange restore situation with an 80gb information
store from an online backup, and we had to wait several hours before we
could even begin to work with the inconsistent databases. Not good.

So, 'power users' who want 400mb+ have to archive somewhere. OST's don't
perform this function according to my understanding, so it has to be PST's.
As i said, here in London our guys just leave the PST's on the local hard
drive, but our friends in the north choose to keep them on file servers
where there's a nightly backup. 

So, it seems they've shown me a use of PST's on net drives where no viable
alternative exists to achieve the same result, namely, to maintain mailbox
limits and thus a manageable store while allowing users to archive their
data where it will get backed up.

is there a better way?

dan.

> Dan,
> 
> You're right, offline folders wouldn't help alleviate the mailbox size
> restriction problem..
> 
> There's still the question:  Is storage space on your file server less
> expensive than on your Exchange server?  If there's a good 
> reason that some
> users need more than 400 Mb worth of storage space, why make 
> them split
> things into PST's?
> 
> PST's on file servers aren't "bad" per-say, just a waste of time and
> resources and a potential headache for the admin...
> 
> Joe Pochedley
> "I like deadlines," 
> cartoonist Scott Adams once said. 
> "I especially like the whooshing 
> sound they make as they fly by."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> thanks for your comment ed.
> 
> i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would 
> just be mirrors
> of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not what's needed
> here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the 
> store limit and
> can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be used in this
> manner. 
> 
> am i missing something about offline folders?
> 
> dan.
> 
> > I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I suggest that 
> > offline folders might be more appropriate.
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> > Tech Consultant
> > Compaq Computer Corporation
> > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson, 
> > Daniel
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:52 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > 
> > 
> > ok, check this pst scenario:
> > 
> > exchange site in uk, 450 users, 400mb mailbox limit, 30gb store.
> > 
> > servers are located in london, remote sites in northern 
> cities connect 
> > via 2mbps links.
> > 
> > users often hit the mailbox limit and have to archive to pst.
> > in london,
> > they just move items to a pst on their local disk, and we 
> > make sure that
> > they understand their data is no longer available via OWA 
> or backed up
> > nightly.
> > 
> > in the northern cities, the techs have put the PST's onto network 
> > drives. i immediately yelled "pst on net drives = bad" but their 
> > philosophy is that they have plentiful disk space on their file 
> > servers and a fast network, so they do this to gain the advantage of
> > backing up
> > the pst's.
> > 
> > i can't think of any good reason to persuade them to store
> > the pst's on
> > local hard drives, and i think that's because there isn't one. 
> > 
> > dan.
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 11 January 2002 06:11
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject:  RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's fine [1] but keep them off

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

thanks for your comment ed.

i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would just be mirrors
of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not what's needed
here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the store limit and
can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be used in this
manner. 

am i missing something about offline folders?

dan.

> I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I suggest that
> offline folders might be more appropriate.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer Corporation
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson,
> Daniel
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:52 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> ok, check this pst scenario:
> 
> exchange site in uk, 450 users, 400mb mailbox limit, 30gb store.
> 
> servers are located in london, remote sites in northern cities connect
> via 2mbps links.
> 
> users often hit the mailbox limit and have to archive to pst. 
> in london,
> they just move items to a pst on their local disk, and we 
> make sure that
> they understand their data is no longer available via OWA or backed up
> nightly.
> 
> in the northern cities, the techs have put the PST's onto network
> drives. i immediately yelled "pst on net drives = bad" but their
> philosophy is that they have plentiful disk space on their 
> file servers
> and a fast network, so they do this to gain the advantage of 
> backing up
> the pst's.
> 
> i can't think of any good reason to persuade them to store 
> the pst's on
> local hard drives, and i think that's because there isn't one. 
> 
> dan.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 11 January 2002 06:11
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject:  RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > 
> > 
> > That's fine [1] but keep them off file servers.
> > 
> > [1] not really
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> > Tech Consultant
> > Compaq Computer
> > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral
> > problems."
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of 
> Cook, David A.
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:34 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> > 
> > 
> > I have read all those things about PST=BAD and I have used
> > all of those.
> > I gave my suggestion of do not allow any PSTs and I was told that we
> > have to allow PSTs. The reasons is the best part of the whole thing,
> > "they have always been able to use PSTs so we can't take that 
> > away from
> > them". Politics is the problem. 
> > 
> > The more I'm thinking about this the madder it makes me. I've
> > given this
> > recommendation before and then this time I was asked to give the
> > recommendation again so it could be taking to the powers that 
> > be. I give
> > my recommendation and I'm told it is not acceptable. I'm pretty much
> > being given the recommandation and being told that it is my
> > recommendation now justify it. I can't justify the wrong decision.
> > 
> > So that was my rant that you all could care less about but 
> thank you 
> > everyone for the input.
> > 
> > 
> > Dave Cook
> > Exchange Administrator
> > Kutak Rock, LLP
> > 402-231-8352
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: DNS Changes take how long

[Atkinson, Daniel]

it does take about 24 hours to get all the way around the world, but you
will find zone transfers to regional dns servers can happen almost
instantly. for example, if i update my external dns hosted here in london
and reload, the new records are correctly served by DNS servers in other
parts of the UK before i have time to say 'nslookup'.

the trick with DNS is to be prepared, always know in advance when a change
needs doing so you can crank the ttl down (typically to 900 seconds) before
making the change.

better still, NAT your public addresses to a private address space with a
firewall and then you can move your internal hosts around much as you like
without changing the external DNS. the only time you need to plan ahead is
for adding new public addresses.

dan.

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 January 2002 17:16
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: DNS Changes take how long
> 
> 
> I stand by my contention that it will take on average 
> 1/2[TTL].  If the TTL is 60 seconds, it will seem immediate 
> (but given a statistically significant sample will actually 
> average 30 seconds).  Surely you're not saying that every 
> caching DNS server in the world clears its cache at midnight EST?  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Posted At: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:43 AM
> > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> > Conversation: DNS Changes take how long
> > Subject: Re: DNS Changes take how long
> > 
> > 
> > Supposed to happen every 24 hours at midnight EST. Give it 24 
> > hours after
> > that to propogate.
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Tony Hlabse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:58 AM
> > Subject: DNS Changes take how long
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Well we are making the switch from a Eudora email server to 
> > a Exchange
> > 2000
> > > setup. The new Zone records will be sent to our ISP Verio. 
> > We are hoping
> > all
> > > updates to other DNS servers will in place by Monday. 
> > Anybody think it
> > will
> > > take longer than 48+ hours. We make the change request 
> > today at noon.
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: 
> > http://mobile.msn.com
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Haiku Friday

[Atkinson, Daniel]

> Get your boss fired
> Then take control of your life
> Work from home all day

this is sound advice
though how best to get boss fired?
time to plant some drugs

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Haiku Friday

[Atkinson, Daniel]

> Working from home rocks
> VPN and VNC
> means laundry gets done

yes it rocks it's true
but you must convince the boss
that's what i can't do

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Slightly OT: PST policies

[Atkinson, Daniel]

ok, check this pst scenario:

exchange site in uk, 450 users, 400mb mailbox limit, 30gb store.

servers are located in london, remote sites in northern cities connect via
2mbps links.

users often hit the mailbox limit and have to archive to pst. in london,
they just move items to a pst on their local disk, and we make sure that
they understand their data is no longer available via OWA or backed up
nightly.

in the northern cities, the techs have put the PST's onto network drives. i
immediately yelled "pst on net drives = bad" but their philosophy is that
they have plentiful disk space on their file servers and a fast network, so
they do this to gain the advantage of backing up the pst's.

i can't think of any good reason to persuade them to store the pst's on
local hard drives, and i think that's because there isn't one. 

dan.


> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 January 2002 06:11
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> That's fine [1] but keep them off file servers.
> 
> [1] not really
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> Tech Consultant
> Compaq Computer
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral 
> problems."
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cook, David A.
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:34 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
> 
> 
> I have read all those things about PST=BAD and I have used 
> all of those.
> I gave my suggestion of do not allow any PSTs and I was told that we
> have to allow PSTs. The reasons is the best part of the whole thing,
> "they have always been able to use PSTs so we can't take that 
> away from
> them". Politics is the problem. 
> 
> The more I'm thinking about this the madder it makes me. I've 
> given this
> recommendation before and then this time I was asked to give the
> recommendation again so it could be taking to the powers that 
> be. I give
> my recommendation and I'm told it is not acceptable. I'm pretty much
> being given the recommandation and being told that it is my
> recommendation now justify it. I can't justify the wrong decision.
> 
> So that was my rant that you all could care less about but thank you
> everyone for the input.
> 
> 
> Dave Cook
> Exchange Administrator
> Kutak Rock, LLP
> 402-231-8352
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: firewall problem

[Atkinson, Daniel]

there is a KB about that i think, have a search


> 
> Hi,
> Does anyone know about the original question which was why 
> exchange on Win2K
> changes its ports and how it can be stopped?
> many thanks
> Vanessa
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 13:27
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: firewall problem
> 
> 
> What about monitoring of those servers in the DMZ?  Do you 
> use PerfMon to
> check queues or critical processes?  If so, what ports are 
> needed there if
> your monitoring workstation is on the other side of the DMZ?  
> Or do you
> simply use some kind of paging system when it reaches a threshold?
> 
> Nate Couch
> EDS Messaging
> 
> > --
> > From:   Atkinson, Daniel
> > Reply To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, December 12, 2001 06:42
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:RE: firewall problem
> > 
> > 
> > thanks for the information
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Olds, Dominic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 12 December 2001 11:55
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: firewall problem
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Any open port is a potential security risk. This risk 
> > > increases with the
> > > amount you "open up" on your firewall. Personally, I would 
> > > only ever allow
> > > SMTP traffic to an (relay protected) exchange box inside 
> a firewall.
> > > Anything else and I would relay from a box sitting in the DMZ 
> > > (for smtp, OWA
> > > etc etc) thus meaning I only have to allow the RPC and stuff 
> > > for exchange
> > > between 2 specifically defined boxes from the DMZ to the 
> > > internal network.
> > > It will make your life easier if you open these ports right?? 
> > > So it follows
> > > that a hacker's life becomes easier too. If you choose the 
> > > lazy route you
> > > are likely to pay for it in other ways.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Dom.
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 12 December 2001 11:46
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: firewall problem
> > > 
> > > 
> > > i'd like to open our exchange server through the 
> firewall, but my boss
> > > thinks this is a 'massive security risk'. i think if i 
> open it just to
> > > specified hosts, then that would be ok. what does anyone 
> else think?
> > > 
> > > dan.
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Watkins V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Sent: 12 December 2001 11:16
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: firewall problem
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Dear all,
> > > > 
> > > > I have several exchange servers which work fine through a 
> > > > firewall except
> > > > one, using the TechNet recommended ports for DS and IS of 
> > > > 1300 and 1301
> > > > respectively.  The one that doesn't work is one which is 
> > > > running Win2K.  The
> > > > others run NT4.  I have set the ports to 1300 and 1301 in the 
> > > > registry as
> > > > usual, but the server is ignoring this fact.  It is just 
> > > > using random ports
> > > > and so I am having to change the firewall ports instead!!!   
> > > > The ports it
> > > > uses change after every reboot, so obviously, this is 
> troublesome.
> > > > Anyone have a fix for this?
> > > > We are using Exchange 5.5 sp4
> > > > 
> > > > thanks
> > > > Vanessa Watkins
> > > > Network Manager
> > > > Royal Holloway
> > > > 
> > > > 
> _
> > > > List posting FAQ:   
> http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > > Archives:   
> http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/reso

RE: firewall problem

[Atkinson, Daniel]

thanks for the information

> -Original Message-
> From: Olds, Dominic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 11:55
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: firewall problem
> 
> 
> Any open port is a potential security risk. This risk 
> increases with the
> amount you "open up" on your firewall. Personally, I would 
> only ever allow
> SMTP traffic to an (relay protected) exchange box inside a firewall.
> Anything else and I would relay from a box sitting in the DMZ 
> (for smtp, OWA
> etc etc) thus meaning I only have to allow the RPC and stuff 
> for exchange
> between 2 specifically defined boxes from the DMZ to the 
> internal network.
> It will make your life easier if you open these ports right?? 
> So it follows
> that a hacker's life becomes easier too. If you choose the 
> lazy route you
> are likely to pay for it in other ways.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dom.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 11:46
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: firewall problem
> 
> 
> i'd like to open our exchange server through the firewall, but my boss
> thinks this is a 'massive security risk'. i think if i open it just to
> specified hosts, then that would be ok. what does anyone else think?
> 
> dan.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Watkins V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 12 December 2001 11:16
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: firewall problem
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > I have several exchange servers which work fine through a 
> > firewall except
> > one, using the TechNet recommended ports for DS and IS of 
> > 1300 and 1301
> > respectively.  The one that doesn't work is one which is 
> > running Win2K.  The
> > others run NT4.  I have set the ports to 1300 and 1301 in the 
> > registry as
> > usual, but the server is ignoring this fact.  It is just 
> > using random ports
> > and so I am having to change the firewall ports instead!!!   
> > The ports it
> > uses change after every reboot, so obviously, this is troublesome.
> > Anyone have a fix for this?
> > We are using Exchange 5.5 sp4
> > 
> > thanks
> > Vanessa Watkins
> > Network Manager
> > Royal Holloway
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: firewall problem

[Atkinson, Daniel]

you mean if they spoofed the IP address? well our PIX takes care of that, to a 
point

> -Original Message-
> From: Brent Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 12:00
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: firewall problem
> 
> 
> How would you know if the hosts attached (seeming to be specified) are
> actually the hosts you specified?
> .. you would not.
> 
> B
> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 December 2001 01:46
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: firewall problem
> 
> 
> i'd like to open our exchange server through the firewall, but my boss
> thinks this is a 'massive security risk'. i think if i open it just to
> specified hosts, then that would be ok. what does anyone else think?
> 
> dan.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Watkins V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 12 December 2001 11:16
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: firewall problem
> > 
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > I have several exchange servers which work fine through a 
> > firewall except
> > one, using the TechNet recommended ports for DS and IS of 
> > 1300 and 1301
> > respectively.  The one that doesn't work is one which is 
> > running Win2K.  The
> > others run NT4.  I have set the ports to 1300 and 1301 in the 
> > registry as
> > usual, but the server is ignoring this fact.  It is just 
> > using random ports
> > and so I am having to change the firewall ports instead!!!   
> > The ports it
> > uses change after every reboot, so obviously, this is troublesome.
> > Anyone have a fix for this?
> > We are using Exchange 5.5 sp4
> > 
> > thanks
> > Vanessa Watkins
> > Network Manager
> > Royal Holloway
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]