Re: Email Addresses
Hi. Using outlook XP, I have put two internet address in the bcc field. When they get the email they see nothing in the To: field. So? Mark. - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 22:06 Subject: RE: Email Addresses Internet recipients will. 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 Mark Hanji Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Email Addresses each recipient only sees the email as if it was sent directly to them (as an individual). with bcc, the recipient wont see his name in the to: field. - Original Message - From: Soysal, Serdar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: RE: Email Addresses Bcc. -Original Message- From: Tim John - Domainz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Email Addresses Hi all, My CEO recently sent an email to a number of customers. We created a DL containing the email addresses from contact details that we have and the DL was the basis for the 'To' part of the email. We have had several replies from customers expressing some concern that everyone's email address on the list was transmitted in the email. For example, if I sent an email to a DL that contained Paul, Peter and Steve, it would be received by each, with Pauls, Peters and Steves email details visible. How can I configure a DL so that when an email is sent to a number of addresses, each recipient only sees the email as if it was sent directly to them (as an individual). Any advice would be well received. Thanks Tim _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
OOO
Hi. I don't allow OOO (Out Of the Office) in my ex5.5 environment, to be used to the internet. The issue is that the sales people say this is their way to tell our costumers that they are not available. I have tried saying: 1. Security risk 2. Bad Netiquitte 3. Risk of mail loops (Chris - I grabbed it from one of your replied in the news) They say mailbox quote and our strong mail relay will solve issue 3. for reason one, they say that I do leave a message on my cell saying I am on vocation, so why shouldn't I do the same in my email. well, anyway, can any one put a bit of experience reply on this issue? I really feel OOO to the internet is mistake Thanks. _ 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: IS 70GB and growing....
pst b - Original Message - From: Hansen, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing Our Mail server is 5 years old, has 1100 mailboxes and not one is over 120megs thanks to storage limits. Anyone who complains saves anything critical to a fileserver or a pst. The system works great. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing And you are praying for the day when it blows up? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 04:25 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
SIS and English
First, cool subject :-) Ex5.5, perfmon on MSexchangeIS private. I look at the Single Instance Storage Ratio counter and wonder: Does the word ratio means like the English ratio word, or it means actually how much data I save because I am using SIS? Idiot Question? Look at :Q160178 Single Instance Ratio: The ratio between the total number of message references and the total number of messages stored in the information store. This ratio indicates the amount of storage saved by single instance storage. = The first sentence talks about ratio, which means some kind of mathematical relation. The second sentence talks about a permanent number - amount of storage. Well?! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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....
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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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
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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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
Re: IS 70GB and growing....
Hi Darcy. Thanks for your answer. - Original Message - From: Darcy Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:52 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing Pfooey! I have several stores that are well over 50gb each. No problems with cycling the store, rebooting the boxes, performing backups (and restores) etc. . . You just have to know WTF you're doing. Hey - didn't you once claim to be an expert in Exchange 5.5? Darcy -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hello. I have been told that Exchange 5.5 with IS bigger than 50G is VERY bad. It means there is big chance the IS won't start after restart. I am wondering if this is true, meaning, this is an undocument limitation, and should I be afraid to have IS above 70G? The IS is on EMC. The server is very very strong and acts very fast Thanks for your time! - Original Message - From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:32 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing SIS is maintained per database, not per server. So in moving users between databases SIS is maintained on a per database basis. When, how and where you should opt for additional servers, databases or storage groups is not a universal formula which can be applied unilaterally. Based on the information you've provided there is no right answer. I know of organizations with significantly larger databases than 70GB, whether or not that is appropriate for the organization you are working with is impossible to say at this point. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hi. I think I am missing something. As far as I understand, if I install second exchange server in the site, I will get a new priv.edb. If I move mailbox to that server, I will loose SIS between servers. So, if a message is sent to 4 mailbox's on one server, and 9 mailboxes on second server, I will have 2 instance of the same message. Am I right? Thanks! - Original Message - From: Couch, Nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:55 PM 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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] === This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use
Re: IS 70GB and growing....
And may I ask why? I am going to use clariion , if it makes any change. - Original Message - From: Davis,Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 1:00 AM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing I'd be more worried about EMC as your storage than the size of your IS. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hello. I have been told that Exchange 5.5 with IS bigger than 50G is VERY bad. It means there is big chance the IS won't start after restart. I am wondering if this is true, meaning, this is an undocument limitation, and should I be afraid to have IS above 70G? The IS is on EMC. The server is very very strong and acts very fast Thanks for your time! - Original Message - From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:32 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing SIS is maintained per database, not per server. So in moving users between databases SIS is maintained on a per database basis. When, how and where you should opt for additional servers, databases or storage groups is not a universal formula which can be applied unilaterally. Based on the information you've provided there is no right answer. I know of organizations with significantly larger databases than 70GB, whether or not that is appropriate for the organization you are working with is impossible to say at this point. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hi. I think I am missing something. As far as I understand, if I install second exchange server in the site, I will get a new priv.edb. If I move mailbox to that server, I will loose SIS between servers. So, if a message is sent to 4 mailbox's on one server, and 9 mailboxes on second server, I will have 2 instance of the same message. Am I right? Thanks! - Original Message - From: Couch, Nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:55 PM 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives
Re: IS 70GB and growing....
if a 73GB IS bothers you Will 73GB IS in Exchange5.5 bother you? how you feel about it? - Original Message - From: Great Cthulhu Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:07 AM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing Then you didn't read my last paragraph. Now read ye my full message, ye scurvy dog, or I'll keel-haul ye! (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Hanji Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 2:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hi. You didn't help me. You don't have too. - Original Message - From: Great Cthulhu Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing The best thing to do is get the two departments who have the most mail on the server together in a room. Explain that you have to split the IS in half and hold a sword over the server. The department that asks for their mail to be deleted so the store need not be split in that manner is the one that truly loves the server most and, hence, deserves to have the whole of it. Wipe out all the other mail on that server, delete the accounts from other departments, and take enough money for a 2TB drive array out of that department's budget. If neither department steps in, then hand each half of a server and chastise them for their foolishness. Alternatively, if a 73GB IS bothers you, you could always buy bigger hard drives for the box or tell people it's time to right-click the Deleted Items folder and select Empty 'Deleted Items' Folder from the available choices and then to select Yes at the next prompt... (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Hanji Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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....
Hi. You didn't help me. You don't have too. - Original Message - From: Great Cthulhu Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing The best thing to do is get the two departments who have the most mail on the server together in a room. Explain that you have to split the IS in half and hold a sword over the server. The department that asks for their mail to be deleted so the store need not be split in that manner is the one that truly loves the server most and, hence, deserves to have the whole of it. Wipe out all the other mail on that server, delete the accounts from other departments, and take enough money for a 2TB drive array out of that department's budget. If neither department steps in, then hand each half of a server and chastise them for their foolishness. Alternatively, if a 73GB IS bothers you, you could always buy bigger hard drives for the box or tell people it's time to right-click the Deleted Items folder and select Empty 'Deleted Items' Folder from the available choices and then to select Yes at the next prompt... (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Hanji Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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: 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
... what I am missing? - Original Message - From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing You're so vain. I bet you thought that post was about you. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hi. You didn't help me. You don't have too. - Original Message - From: Great Cthulhu Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 11:40 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing The best thing to do is get the two departments who have the most mail on the server together in a room. Explain that you have to split the IS in half and hold a sword over the server. The department that asks for their mail to be deleted so the store need not be split in that manner is the one that truly loves the server most and, hence, deserves to have the whole of it. Wipe out all the other mail on that server, delete the accounts from other departments, and take enough money for a 2TB drive array out of that department's budget. If neither department steps in, then hand each half of a server and chastise them for their foolishness. Alternatively, if a 73GB IS bothers you, you could always buy bigger hard drives for the box or tell people it's time to right-click the Deleted Items folder and select Empty 'Deleted Items' Folder from the available choices and then to select Yes at the next prompt... (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Hanji Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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]
Re: IS 70GB and growing....
Hi. I think I am missing something. As far as I understand, if I install second exchange server in the site, I will get a new priv.edb. If I move mailbox to that server, I will loose SIS between servers. So, if a message is sent to 4 mailbox's on one server, and 9 mailboxes on second server, I will have 2 instance of the same message. Am I right? Thanks! - Original Message - From: Couch, Nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:55 PM 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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....
Hello. I have been told that Exchange 5.5 with IS bigger than 50G is VERY bad. It means there is big chance the IS won't start after restart. I am wondering if this is true, meaning, this is an undocument limitation, and should I be afraid to have IS above 70G? The IS is on EMC. The server is very very strong and acts very fast Thanks for your time! - Original Message - From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:32 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing SIS is maintained per database, not per server. So in moving users between databases SIS is maintained on a per database basis. When, how and where you should opt for additional servers, databases or storage groups is not a universal formula which can be applied unilaterally. Based on the information you've provided there is no right answer. I know of organizations with significantly larger databases than 70GB, whether or not that is appropriate for the organization you are working with is impossible to say at this point. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Hi. I think I am missing something. As far as I understand, if I install second exchange server in the site, I will get a new priv.edb. If I move mailbox to that server, I will loose SIS between servers. So, if a message is sent to 4 mailbox's on one server, and 9 mailboxes on second server, I will have 2 instance of the same message. Am I right? Thanks! - Original Message - From: Couch, Nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:55 PM 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 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IS 70GB and growing Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) 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]
IS 70GB and growing....
Hi guys. I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB (total of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller databases. I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would like to hear your opinions. In case it is important, the IS is going to be moved to EMC box in 3 months (part of storage project). I am mostly intersted hearing from happy users with such big IS (are there?!) Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Email Addresses
each recipient only sees the email as if it was sent directly to them (as an individual). with bcc, the recipient wont see his name in the to: field. - Original Message - From: Soysal, Serdar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: RE: Email Addresses Bcc. -Original Message- From: Tim John - Domainz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Email Addresses Hi all, My CEO recently sent an email to a number of customers. We created a DL containing the email addresses from contact details that we have and the DL was the basis for the 'To' part of the email. We have had several replies from customers expressing some concern that everyone's email address on the list was transmitted in the email. For example, if I sent an email to a DL that contained Paul, Peter and Steve, it would be received by each, with Pauls, Peters and Steves email details visible. How can I configure a DL so that when an email is sent to a number of addresses, each recipient only sees the email as if it was sent directly to them (as an individual). Any advice would be well received. Thanks Tim _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Stupid Question
Have you find a product to BLB to AD?! For E2K there are, for AD I haven't seen.. - Original Message - From: Chris Haaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:27 PM Subject: Stupid Question My boss is looking for the definitive answer. I KNOW the answer for XCH 5.5. but in XCH 2K does MS support the use of brick - level backups (ducks quickly) Thanks! I know Ed's EMail signature *should* say it all; I have even passed it along to my boss! Destiny...is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved. William Jennings Bryan (1860 - 1925); American lawyer and politician. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Print message automatically
Geee you changing work place to often - Original Message - From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:41 PM Subject: RE: Print message automatically Might check www.cdolive.com. One of Sig's scripts combined with some perl code could probably do what you want... heck, you could probably do it all in perl. You could kill an entire forest if someone decided to mailbomb that PF heh. -- Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.Mail-Resources.com The Home Page for Mail Administrators. Software pick of the month (Extended Reminders): http://www.slovaktech.com/extendedreminders.htm Exchange FAQs: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm -Original Message- From: Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Print message automatically Does anyone know of a way to print a message automatically when it is received in a public folder? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Moving 45 users between sites
Hello. I need to move 45 users from one site to another site, within the same Org (all is 5.5, SP4). The built-in move mailbox wizard works within site. The exmerge will export to .pst, thus, the users will loose their ID in the exchange org... What is the best way to accomplish this? I would like them not to feel this move. (I know I will need to re-build their profile). Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Event ID 4128 and Event ID 4093
hmmm If you get hit by the nimda virus, it can spread via OWA. I think it is a good idea to run file-server-based anti-virus on the exchange server, to scan webdata directory. What do you think? - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday-Oct-01 06:00 Subject: RE: Event ID 4128 and Event ID 4093 Yikes! See my earler post. 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 Van Huissteden, Adriaan Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Event ID 4128 and Event ID 4093 I am running server Protect as well! Bad Idea? ?? Thanks -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2001 2:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Event ID 4128 and Event ID 4093 Just Scanmail. Not Server Protect, right? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Van Huissteden, Adriaan Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 7:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Event ID 4128 and Event ID 4093 I run TREND software on the Server, and it up-dates every night! Thanks -Original Message- From: Scott Force [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2001 2:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Event ID 4128 and Event ID 4093 Do you have anti-virus software installed on your server? I received the same error and it was related to a virus. Hi all, I am getting heaps of error in my Event Log out our exchange server as bellow: Event ID: 4128 Source: MSExhangeIMC Type Error Category Internal Processing Description Failure setting file attributes on file c:\EXCHSRVR\imcdata\in\VQCYZ!HF. The error code returned was 'The system cannot find file specified. This is un unexpected error and the IMS is shutting down.. Event ID: 4093 Source: MSExhangeIMC Type Error Category Internal Processing Description The error code 2 was returned when trying to remove spool file c:\EXCHSRVR\imcdata\in\VQCYZ!HF This file may cause duplicate mail to be sent out when the server is restarted. Thanks All Adriaan Van Huissteden Network Administrator Connect Credit Union Phone: (03) 6233 0660 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Mapi Clinet for win2000
Hello. I think it would be relevant to post my tests with Q254458: It doesn't support y2k. It required restart to start working. It supports only PST,MS mail and PAB. And of course, it isn't supported by MS. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MAPI Client for Windows 2000
Who told you I don't believe them? The status for now is: No one ,yet, told me 'I have installed it on a test box, and it was ok/bad'. - Original Message - From: Tom Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday-Oct-01 00:48 Subject: Re: MAPI Client for Windows 2000 The definitive answer: Test it yourself. You have knowledgeable people telling you not to do it, and you don't believe them. Pretend you're a professional and test it in a lab environment. I've never stuffed my cat into a coffee mug, but I've got strong indications from previous observations of both coffee mugs and cats that tell me he wouldn't react well. I'm thinking none of the other 4,000 people on this list have stuffed a cat into a coffee mug, and yet pretty darned near ALL of them have an idea that it wouldn't be good, without being able to quantify the EXACT point of systemic breakdown. If you don't believe me, stuff your own damn cat into your own damn coffee mug. Hello. An optional answer: Application that requires mapi client on the server. For example: FAX application, anti virus that doesn't work via AVAPI, BLB backup solution, and others, that I may not say in public ;-) Anyway, among many replies I got, none of them was an answer to my question. [snip] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange clustering
Even for EX2000? Thanks. - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday-Oct-01 09:05 Subject: Re: Exchange clustering I'm planning my first book, Exchange Clusters: Why Bother? Ed Crowley Compaq Computer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joe D. Llewelyn Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 10:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange clustering Hi all, New to the group however I've been watching for some time. This is in no way a flame posting, however I seek information regarding the clustering of Exchange 2000 servers. Could anyone point out any good reference points - be they web or book? I've searched high and low on various search engines but just get sites full of mumbo-jumbo that is not relevant. Regards, Joe _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: AntiVirus Change
The reason Microsoft Will have a doc comparing birds to ants. What your Q has to do with my request Kelly said he have documents comparing two antivirus products. I assume he made some research on this subject in the past. Maybe he also has a table to compare Norton to Trend. I asked him. That's all. I hope you are not confused now. Feel free to email me offline - Original Message - From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday-Oct-01 21:13 Subject: RE: AntiVirus Change Why would Sybari want to write a doc comparing Norton to Trend? *confused* -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2001 1:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: AntiVirus Change Hello. Do you have some norton vs trend compare docs? Thanks. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19-Oct-01 17:16 Subject: Re: AntiVirus Change Well, first off, you can scan with more than one engine when using Antigen. Which means that if one virus pattern hasn't been updated, one of the others will. Good to fall back on. I can get docs comparing Antigen to Trend, feel free to contact me offline. ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com One man's ceiling is another man's floor |+--- || [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 10/19/2001 06:37 AM | || Please respond to| || Exchange Discussions | || | |+--- - -- -| | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: AntiVirus Change | - -- -| And I am trying to convince my supervisor to not use InoculateIT and use Sybari's Antigen instead... but, as you already know, that isn't an easy task... So, I beg you: please give me some link to a website/document that compares antivirus for exchange server 5.5, so I can show my superiors the mistake they are doing!! I guess the new version of InoculateIT (eTrust InoculateIT 6.0, if i'm not mistaken) is better than version 4... but I still consider Antigen better than InoculateIT. Thanks! Ok, I am trying to convince my Supervisor to switch from InoculateIT to Antigen. Can someone point me to their website so that I can get some more information about the product and get my research started. Both my mail servers are Nt 4.0 w/SP6a, running Exchange 5.5 w/SP4 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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
Re: AntiVirus Change
Hello. Do you have some norton vs trend compare docs? Thanks. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19-Oct-01 17:16 Subject: Re: AntiVirus Change Well, first off, you can scan with more than one engine when using Antigen. Which means that if one virus pattern hasn't been updated, one of the others will. Good to fall back on. I can get docs comparing Antigen to Trend, feel free to contact me offline. ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com One man's ceiling is another man's floor |+--- || [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 10/19/2001 06:37 AM | || Please respond to| || Exchange Discussions | || | |+--- --- -| | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: Re: AntiVirus Change | --- -| And I am trying to convince my supervisor to not use InoculateIT and use Sybari's Antigen instead... but, as you already know, that isn't an easy task... So, I beg you: please give me some link to a website/document that compares antivirus for exchange server 5.5, so I can show my superiors the mistake they are doing!! I guess the new version of InoculateIT (eTrust InoculateIT 6.0, if i'm not mistaken) is better than version 4... but I still consider Antigen better than InoculateIT. Thanks! Ok, I am trying to convince my Supervisor to switch from InoculateIT to Antigen. Can someone point me to their website so that I can get some more information about the product and get my research started. Both my mail servers are Nt 4.0 w/SP6a, running Exchange 5.5 w/SP4 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Restore
How can you know it will always a bad thing? - Original Message - From: Don Ely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 1:09 AM Subject: RE: Restore Still is a bad thing, it will always be a bad thing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David N. Precht Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Restore Wasnt that a bad thing to do in 5.5 , wouldnt also be true in 2k ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Van Huissteden, Adriaan Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 23:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Restore Can you backup and Restore individual Mailboxes on Exchange Server 2K? Thanks Adriaan Van Huissteden Network Administrator Connect Credit Union Phone: (03) 6233 0660 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Restore
MS , or third party product, may give an option to backup and restore mailbox is more robust way than via MAPI, in the future. And about your second sentence I hope you don't waste your time by restoring exchange boxes every 2-3 days. It is time for people here to look a bit beyond BLB is bad. the market has many new solutions, and an admin can backup both: ntbackup and BLB, for example. - Original Message - From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 1:34 PM Subject: RE: Restore Because BLB SUCK Donkey Sausage!!! And if an exchange admin needs BLB's then he doesn't know how to admin his Exchange Box. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 5:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Restore How can you know it will always a bad thing? - Original Message - From: Don Ely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 1:09 AM Subject: RE: Restore Still is a bad thing, it will always be a bad thing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David N. Precht Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 4:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Restore Wasnt that a bad thing to do in 5.5 , wouldnt also be true in 2k ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Van Huissteden, Adriaan Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 23:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Restore Can you backup and Restore individual Mailboxes on Exchange Server 2K? Thanks Adriaan Van Huissteden Network Administrator Connect Credit Union Phone: (03) 6233 0660 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MAPI Client for Windows 2000
Hello. An optional answer: Application that requires mapi client on the server. For example: FAX application, anti virus that doesn't work via AVAPI, BLB backup solution, and others, that I may not say in public ;-) Anyway, among many replies I got, none of them was an answer to my question. - Original Message - From: Byron Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2001 9:20 AM Subject: RE: MAPI Client for Windows 2000 Hanji San, i bet dinner of your choice in San Francisco that you've never heard a profound discussion surrounding the value of installing a mapi client on an exchange server. further, even ms says the legacy app is supplied as is with no product support... clue.get! why go out of your way to add instability to your system? okay, let me ask the question another way, what value are you providing to your system by considering this? if you can answer that, I for one will test it with you. kanbanwa.byron -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MAPI Client for Windows 2000 Based on the Q, I am curious to know how you got to the conclusion that this email client, isn't Exchange Server client. - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:30 AM Subject: Re: MAPI Client for Windows 2000 Where is this guy's tech buddy?! Windows Messaging is indeed a MAPI client. But it is NOT an Exchange Server client. It's the same thing as that Exchange that shipped with Windows 95. It's a POP3/SMTP or MS Mail client. That's all. It would be very stupid to install that on an Exchange 2000 server. Of course, given your prior posts, that probably won't dissuade you, but I've done my due diligence. Ed Crowley Compaq Computer --- Mark Hanji [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. Has anyone tried the mapi client on Q254458? Can you share experience? I would like to install in on EX2000 box. 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] __ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
MAPI Client for Windows 2000
Hello. Has anyone tried the mapi client on Q254458? Can you share experience? I would like to install in on EX2000 box. Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed
The amount of anger and self importance you have, is amazing. How exactly you answered/helped? Never mind, you will never be a normal person. - Original Message - From: Great Cthulhu Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 05:38 Subject: RE: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed Hiya, Mark! How's it going? 1) Reformat it at will until the client complains of you padding your hours. 2) Why not cluster it now? That way, you can reformat at least twice as many boxes at a time! 3) Just to clarify, putting PC Anywhere back in the box it came in is a good idea. Why not make up a Q article of your own? All you have to do is get a regular KB article and edit it to suit your needs. Bosses only read printouts, they never check web links. You'll be very safe on that one for a good while, protecting your reformatting job brilliantly. (:= Great Cthulhu Jones CEO, R'lyeh Consulting http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu http://www.bad-managers.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Hanji Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 9:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed Hi. 1) The server isn't production, yet. 2) win2k AS, because it may need to be clustered in the future. 3) I think I already said putting pcanywhere is wrong. So can you advice a Q to tell it is bad to have such configuration. - Original Message - From: Tom Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 14:34 Subject: RE: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed You're wrong. You must get paid a lot to reformat production servers. TS gets reinstalled whenever you add or remove a networking component to Windows 2000 server[1], so you'd be reformatting your server to add Print Services for Unix, because you wanted to create a print queue to a printer down the hall in Engineering. Now why anyone would put pcAnywhere on a server[2]... *shiver* Especially when TS is available. And why would they be spending the extra money for Advanced Server if they don't have enough of a clue to keep pcAnywhere off of it?[3] I'm stunned that you would ever recommend formatting a production server because I 'feel' it is bad. [1] I may be wrong, but it's often enough that it's made me wonder why it keeps reinstalling. [2] http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/pca.nsf/pfdocs/1996123152913 should fix that nicely. [3] Because of the support for 8-processors and the 32-node load balancing? RIIiiight. Someone needs the price delta taken from their paycheck. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Sunday, September 16, 2001 4:18 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed Subject: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed Hello. Here is a nice issue I have: Someone installed windows 2000AS, then installed Ex2000, then pcanywhre, and then TS in Remote Administration Mode. I am saying this server should be formatted, and the TS services should be installed first. PCanywhere should not be installed at all. Can someone please advice/bring some Q's that explains that is very very bad to install TS services AFTER installing applications. I feel it is bad. I need to prove it. 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Terminal Services installed after E2K installed
Hello. Here is a nice issue I have: Someone installed windows 2000AS, then installed Ex2000, then pcanywhre, and then TS in Remote Administration Mode. I am saying this server should be formatted, and the TS services should be installed first. PCanywhere should not be installed at all. Can someone please advice/bring some Q's that explains that is very very bad to install TS services AFTER installing applications. I feel it is bad. I need to prove it. Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed
Hi. 1) The server isn't production, yet. 2) win2k AS, because it may need to be clustered in the future. 3) I think I already said putting pcanywhere is wrong. So can you advice a Q to tell it is bad to have such configuration. - Original Message - From: Tom Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 14:34 Subject: RE: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed You're wrong. You must get paid a lot to reformat production servers. TS gets reinstalled whenever you add or remove a networking component to Windows 2000 server[1], so you'd be reformatting your server to add Print Services for Unix, because you wanted to create a print queue to a printer down the hall in Engineering. Now why anyone would put pcAnywhere on a server[2]... *shiver* Especially when TS is available. And why would they be spending the extra money for Advanced Server if they don't have enough of a clue to keep pcAnywhere off of it?[3] I'm stunned that you would ever recommend formatting a production server because I 'feel' it is bad. [1] I may be wrong, but it's often enough that it's made me wonder why it keeps reinstalling. [2] http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/pca.nsf/pfdocs/1996123152913 should fix that nicely. [3] Because of the support for 8-processors and the 32-node load balancing? RIIiiight. Someone needs the price delta taken from their paycheck. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Sunday, September 16, 2001 4:18 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed Subject: Terminal Services installed after E2K installed Hello. Here is a nice issue I have: Someone installed windows 2000AS, then installed Ex2000, then pcanywhre, and then TS in Remote Administration Mode. I am saying this server should be formatted, and the TS services should be installed first. PCanywhere should not be installed at all. Can someone please advice/bring some Q's that explains that is very very bad to install TS services AFTER installing applications. I feel it is bad. I need to prove it. 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]
Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp
Hello. I am trying to install the Exchange 5.5 admin program on windows xp pro. It tells me there are known issues with back office 4 and 4.5. the details button doesn't help allot. Can anyone please point those known issues?! Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp
for the first question, RTM is available for certian people :-) for the second question, this is what I am looking for. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 17:36 Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Is XP Pro publicly available yet? I thought it was still in beta? If it's still in beta, what do the beta support people say? -Michèle Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com Our new 2001 Miata: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - The real measure of your wealth is how much you'd be worth if you lost all your money. -- Anonymous - -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Hello. I am trying to install the Exchange 5.5 admin program on windows xp pro. It tells me there are known issues with back office 4 and 4.5. the details button doesn't help allot. Can anyone please point those known issues?! 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: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp
Really? - Original Message - From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 18:43 Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Well, you know our motto: Test everything first on your production box. Andy David J Muller International -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Thanks allot. I hope I wont crash my servers while adding mailbox from my XP station. - Original Message - From: Grewal, Raj [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 18:28 Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Exchange 5.5 works great on Windows XP. I've been using Windows XP RC1 and no issues with it. Raj Grewal, MCSE, CNE5, CNA4.11, Network+ Network Analyst Playboy Enterprises, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (312) 751-8000 -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Hello. Andy David J Muller International -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Perhaps you also have a certian (sic) support number for help on that product? - Original Message - From: Mark Hanji [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:57 AM Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp for the first question, RTM is available for certian people :-) for the second question, this is what I am looking for. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 17:36 Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Is XP Pro publicly available yet? I thought it was still in beta? If it's still in beta, what do the beta support people say? -Michèle Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com Our new 2001 Miata: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - The real measure of your wealth is how much you'd be worth if you lost all your money. -- Anonymous - -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange 5.5 admin program on windowsxp Hello. I am trying to install the Exchange 5.5 admin program on windows xp pro. It tells me there are known issues with back office 4 and 4.5. the details button doesn't help allot. Can anyone please point those known issues?! 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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
