RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
The point is that your users can keep old mail they feel that they cannot do without but it's a lot smaller if they edit the messages and remove the attachments. 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: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 2:52 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 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
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
Some people just feel that they can't delete anything. It's a behavioral attribute you're best off not trying to change. 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 Schwartz, Jim Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies 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 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
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
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 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
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 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
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'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
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
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'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
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
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'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
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 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: 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 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
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 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
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
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 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] _ List posting
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
We used to be allowed to wear loincloths and hunt wild game with spears. Some Americans still do. I'm thinking of Ted Nugent... :-) Neil -Original Message- From: Chuck Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2002 20:56 Posted To: Exchange Mailing List Conversation: Slightly OT: PST policies Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies We used to be allowed to wear loincloths and hunt wild game with spears. Progress, such as organized farming, and large information stores on Exchange servers, sometimes has an impact on the way we do things. Better put hitching posts in front of the building in case anybody wants to tie up their mule; we used to be able to do that, too. Hitching posts are no longer needed and have been dismissed for being in the way now that automobiles and public transit are better. PSTs are as thing of the past now that better technology such as large information stores and OSTs have made them obsolete. Do they let anyone use WordStar on CPM because they used to do it that way? Maybe some people still load typewriters with one sheet carbon paper between two sheets bond paper because they did it that way before computers, printers, and photocopiers have made previous methods obsolete. Well, my pen is getting dull, so I'm going to pluck a feather off an eagle on my way to refill my inkwell. You have my sympathy in regards to the stubborn politics of PHB's. -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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] -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Have you gone through the FAQ on why PST=BAD? If you have an Exchange Server and you don't restrict people's mailboxes to a ridiculous size, there is absolutely no reason for you to use PSTs. Offline users can work off of their OSTs. Why is not possible to get rid of them? What is their argument? They want to have a safe virus-scanner-free place to store their games and exes? They prefer to utilize more disk space? They want to provide job security to low level admins who try to recover corrupt PSTs? They are comfortable NOT backing up PSTs for users that don't logoff from Outlook? What is their rationale? S -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained
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]
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
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]
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
Have the users keep them on their local hard drive. Put together a written policy documenting what you propose and why. Be detailed. Document everything. It will come back to you. It might take six months, it might take six years, but it will come back to you. Get legal to sign-off that the users may be violating any existing, or future, email/document retention policy the company has. You might want to explain how much data can be kept in a PST and how long it can be kept there, since most lawyers don't have a clue about the technical aspects. You might also want to mention what would be involved in providing those PSTs to a Plaintiff's lawyer should a discovery request ever be made. Get management signoff on the fact that any data stored in PST files will be stored on the local users' machine and will not be backed up. Don't let them store PST files on file servers; if the data is important enough to be on a server, it should be in an Exchange database. Explain what SIS is. Explain how much more disk space will be used if PST's are allowed on file severs versus an Exchange database. There's a bunch more, but you get the gist. My $.02. Tom. -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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: Slightly OT: PST policies
I agree pretty much with this layout. I have beaten this horse and still it rides. I have managed to at least get most of my people to create a pst for basically each year. Some have gone to more frequent than this, quarterly for a couple. The reason for this? Large PST's corrupt much easier than small ones. This has kept them from getting to big in most cases. If you can't beat them with Technological Solutions then you have to pound them with education and knowledge. Scott -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Have the users keep them on their local hard drive. Put together a written policy documenting what you propose and why. Be detailed. Document everything. It will come back to you. It might take six months, it might take six years, but it will come back to you. Get legal to sign-off that the users may be violating any existing, or future, email/document retention policy the company has. You might want to explain how much data can be kept in a PST and how long it can be kept there, since most lawyers don't have a clue about the technical aspects. You might also want to mention what would be involved in providing those PSTs to a Plaintiff's lawyer should a discovery request ever be made. Get management signoff on the fact that any data stored in PST files will be stored on the local users' machine and will not be backed up. Don't let them store PST files on file servers; if the data is important enough to be on a server, it should be in an Exchange database. Explain what SIS is. Explain how much more disk space will be used if PST's are allowed on file severs versus an Exchange database. There's a bunch more, but you get the gist. My $.02. Tom. -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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: Slightly OT: PST policies
This battle happens in so many companies. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use Remember that PSTs have a max file size of 2 GB each. So if your users are real packrats, you have the potential of having several PSTs per user. Q266709 talks about the file size limitations. You can also contact MS to get the PST/OST crop utility. I've never used it, so I'm not sure how it works. This util is also mentioned in Q266709. This is often a losing battle for email admins. There is no substitute for good user training... Cheers, Karen _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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
Dave, Most people on this list are going to tell you that PST = BAD. Server space is server space, whether it's on the Exchange server, or whether it's on a member server, and that if you need to keep the messages, you should increase the mailbox sizes and keep the important messages in the store. However, with that said, I understand your situation. We have the same scenario here. This is a Department of Energy site that is responsible for environmental cleanup. Because of that, by law, we have to maintain legacy records for a period of 75 years. The only way to do that, that is quick, easy and cheap is to create .pst files by fiscal year and after so many .pst files, burn them to CD and send the CD off to the archives. Jim -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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: Slightly OT: PST policies
Have you gone through the FAQ on why PST=BAD? If you have an Exchange Server and you don't restrict people's mailboxes to a ridiculous size, there is absolutely no reason for you to use PSTs. Offline users can work off of their OSTs. Why is not possible to get rid of them? What is their argument? They want to have a safe virus-scanner-free place to store their games and exes? They prefer to utilize more disk space? They want to provide job security to low level admins who try to recover corrupt PSTs? They are comfortable NOT backing up PSTs for users that don't logoff from Outlook? What is their rationale? S -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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: Slightly OT: PST policies
We used to be allowed to wear loincloths and hunt wild game with spears. Progress, such as organized farming, and large information stores on Exchange servers, sometimes has an impact on the way we do things. Better put hitching posts in front of the building in case anybody wants to tie up their mule; we used to be able to do that, too. Hitching posts are no longer needed and have been dismissed for being in the way now that automobiles and public transit are better. PSTs are as thing of the past now that better technology such as large information stores and OSTs have made them obsolete. Do they let anyone use WordStar on CPM because they used to do it that way? Maybe some people still load typewriters with one sheet carbon paper between two sheets bond paper because they did it that way before computers, printers, and photocopiers have made previous methods obsolete. Well, my pen is getting dull, so I'm going to pluck a feather off an eagle on my way to refill my inkwell. You have my sympathy in regards to the stubborn politics of PHB's. -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 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] -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Have you gone through the FAQ on why PST=BAD? If you have an Exchange Server and you don't restrict people's mailboxes to a ridiculous size, there is absolutely no reason for you to use PSTs. Offline users can work off of their OSTs. Why is not possible to get rid of them? What is their argument? They want to have a safe virus-scanner-free place to store their games and exes? They prefer to utilize more disk space? They want to provide job security to low level admins who try to recover corrupt PSTs? They are comfortable NOT backing up PSTs for users that don't logoff from Outlook? What is their rationale? S -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
Find a way to upgrade the system somehow, and tell them that PSTs are unable to work properly with the new system. It's the truth, sort of... -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! As long as I have any choice in the matter, I will live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance and equality of ALL citizens before the law are the rule. -- Albert Einstein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cook, David A. Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:34 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] -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Have you gone through the FAQ on why PST=BAD? If you have an Exchange Server and you don't restrict people's mailboxes to a ridiculous size, there is absolutely no reason for you to use PSTs. Offline users can work off of their OSTs. Why is not possible to get rid of them? What is their argument? They want to have a safe virus-scanner-free place to store their games and exes? They prefer to utilize more disk space? They want to provide job security to low level admins who try to recover corrupt PSTs? They are comfortable NOT backing up PSTs for users that don't logoff from Outlook? What is their rationale? S -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
This is what we had to do. It all stems from horrible use of distribution list management. We have about 20% more distribution lists than actual employees. This is because our databases are not yet setup for internal communications. Rather, every single fact or piece of information about what a person does, did, or should do is sent via e-mail. This makes for a messy 'notification' process. So, we plunked the PST files down on their hard drives, told them to GO through this information and remove what they don't want, and informed them that information on the hard drive IS volatile and can be lost, so if it's truly important, let us know and if not, oh well. We had no choice because some people were getting close to a gig in their inbox and probably more than 3/4's of the 16 gigs out there are useless multi-posted reminders about things. After 'archiving' tuns of this junk to people's hard drives using a simple 3-month rule, we reclaimed TUNS of space and increased performance a bit. Ultimately, it's a communications solution that will solve it for us, but for now, PSTs help quite a bit. I HATE EM TOO, but what can you do? -Rhyme not intended. Larry Seltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Have the users keep them on their local hard drive. Put together a written policy documenting what you propose and why. Be detailed. Document everything. It will come back to you. It might take six months, it might take six years, but it will come back to you. Get legal to sign-off that the users may be violating any existing, or future, email/document retention policy the company has. You might want to explain how much data can be kept in a PST and how long it can be kept there, since most lawyers don't have a clue about the technical aspects. You might also want to mention what would be involved in providing those PSTs to a Plaintiff's lawyer should a discovery request ever be made. Get management signoff on the fact that any data stored in PST files will be stored on the local users' machine and will not be backed up. Don't let them store PST files on file servers; if the data is important enough to be on a server, it should be in an Exchange database. Explain what SIS is. Explain how much more disk space will be used if PST's are allowed on file severs versus an Exchange database. There's a bunch more, but you get the gist. My $.02. Tom. -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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
RE: Slightly OT: PST policies
And most of us PST=BAD proselytizers will agree that this is, if not an acceptible, a much less onerous use of PSTs. The real bad use of them is when they're the primary storage location for a mailbox. The really really really bad [1] use of them is when they're the primary storage location for mailboxex and are on a file server. [1] not to mention stupid 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 Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Dave, Most people on this list are going to tell you that PST = BAD. Server space is server space, whether it's on the Exchange server, or whether it's on a member server, and that if you need to keep the messages, you should increase the mailbox sizes and keep the important messages in the store. However, with that said, I understand your situation. We have the same scenario here. This is a Department of Energy site that is responsible for environmental cleanup. Because of that, by law, we have to maintain legacy records for a period of 75 years. The only way to do that, that is quick, easy and cheap is to create .pst files by fiscal year and after so many .pst files, burn them to CD and send the CD off to the archives. Jim -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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: Slightly OT: PST policies
Of course, that's a lie, especially with the dawning of the 32TB PST. 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 Drewski Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Find a way to upgrade the system somehow, and tell them that PSTs are unable to work properly with the new system. It's the truth, sort of... -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! As long as I have any choice in the matter, I will live only in a country where civil liberty, tolerance and equality of ALL citizens before the law are the rule. -- Albert Einstein -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Cook, David A. Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:34 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] -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies Have you gone through the FAQ on why PST=BAD? If you have an Exchange Server and you don't restrict people's mailboxes to a ridiculous size, there is absolutely no reason for you to use PSTs. Offline users can work off of their OSTs. Why is not possible to get rid of them? What is their argument? They want to have a safe virus-scanner-free place to store their games and exes? They prefer to utilize more disk space? They want to provide job security to low level admins who try to recover corrupt PSTs? They are comfortable NOT backing up PSTs for users that don't logoff from Outlook? What is their rationale? S -Original Message- From: Cook, David A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: PST policies After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to you guys to find out what you do about PST usage. I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use but the only way I know of that I can do this is based on quotas on the drives where they are stored. The only other way to enforce this would be to monitor it and yell at the people that get large PSTs. I think I'm running into what I have read many times on this list and I will probably get it wrong. There is no technological solution to a behavioral problem Dave Cook Exchange Administrator Kutak Rock, LLP 402-231-8352 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## The information contained in this electronic mail transmission (including any accompanying attachments) is intended solely for its authorized recipient(s), and may be confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, or responsible for delivering some or all of this transmission to an intended recipient, you have received this transmission in error and are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from reading, copying, printing, distributing or disclosing any of the information contained in it. In that event, please contact us immediately by telephone (402)346-6000 or by electronic mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete the original and all copies of this transmission (including any attachments) without reading or saving in any manner. 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
