RE: Anyone using CCR in production?
I saw one of our customers last year who is running Exchange 2000 and wants to go to Exchange 2007. No clustering is used in Exchange 2000 and no clustering is required for Exchange 2007 because, as far as I can remember, they said they had only had 1 unscheduled outage in the last 5 years. It's amazing what can be done with well-redundant single servers. J From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 January 2008 18:33 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I would say that clustering is falling out of favor, not CCR specifically. Clustering adds a lot of cost and a fair bit of maintenance complexity to get a very small up-time improvement. And if your operations folks aren't good - it can lead to worse up-time instead of improved up-time. I'm of the opinion (and it is just that - my opinion) that if you buy good hardware to start with (redundant fans, redundant power supplies, name-brand memory, etc.), that clustering isn't worth the cost. I haven't played with Windows 2008 dispersed clusters yet. They may make it easier and more worthwhile. I dunno yet. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Pete Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Anyone using CCR in production? Ive had a CCR implementation with 10 storage groups and about 200gb of data running on RTM code since last August with no issues. Works great, smooth and reliable failover ..so far. Why is CCR falling out of favor ? I can see where it adds some complexity in setup but the MNS style clustering makes that a lot easier. It does make patching more difficult .. I still need to do SP1 when I have a spare minute. Pete Howard | Systems Engineer MCSE 3.51-2003 | ESX VCP * EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43:00 AM Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? The first two lines are about a particular client using CCR, sorry. The last line is a generic statement. I wasn't clear. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? So you guys aren't using CCR or SCC Michael? From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? 30K+ users, 2 GB hard limits, individual databases limited to 100 GB. Geodispersion is coming, using Windows Server 2008. Backup is LCR to cheap disk. I'm seeing more folks moving away from clustering with LCR and SCR. Good riddance, in my opinion. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Alex Fontana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anyone using CCR in production? Curious to know what folks have seen in the field when using CCR. How many users, how large are your databases, any issues you've encountered. Any geo-dispersed clusters, special quorum configs, and how are you backing all of it up? thanks! -alex ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anyone using CCR in production?
The inactive/evicted model is particularly effective though. From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 January 2008 18:36 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I think Single Node clusters are falling out of favor. :P From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I would say that clustering is falling out of favor, not CCR specifically. Clustering adds a lot of cost and a fair bit of maintenance complexity to get a very small up-time improvement. And if your operations folks aren't good - it can lead to worse up-time instead of improved up-time. I'm of the opinion (and it is just that - my opinion) that if you buy good hardware to start with (redundant fans, redundant power supplies, name-brand memory, etc.), that clustering isn't worth the cost. I haven't played with Windows 2008 dispersed clusters yet. They may make it easier and more worthwhile. I dunno yet. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Pete Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Anyone using CCR in production? Ive had a CCR implementation with 10 storage groups and about 200gb of data running on RTM code since last August with no issues. Works great, smooth and reliable failover ..so far. Why is CCR falling out of favor ? I can see where it adds some complexity in setup but the MNS style clustering makes that a lot easier. It does make patching more difficult .. I still need to do SP1 when I have a spare minute. Pete Howard | Systems Engineer MCSE 3.51-2003 | ESX VCP * EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43:00 AM Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? The first two lines are about a particular client using CCR, sorry. The last line is a generic statement. I wasn't clear. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? So you guys aren't using CCR or SCC Michael? From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? 30K+ users, 2 GB hard limits, individual databases limited to 100 GB. Geodispersion is coming, using Windows Server 2008. Backup is LCR to cheap disk. I'm seeing more folks moving away from clustering with LCR and SCR. Good riddance, in my opinion. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Alex Fontana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anyone using CCR in production? Curious to know what folks have seen in the field when using CCR. How many users, how large are your databases, any issues you've encountered. Any geo-dispersed clusters, special quorum configs, and how are you backing all of it up? thanks! -alex ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: HELP! Corrupt attachments again
I'll look to see whats on the server, however, i'm now at about 400 attachments that we have sent them, all ones that previously they have had problems with, and none of them are yet corrupt, so I'm not convinced its just a network card issue, unless it only happens at load. -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 06:07 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: HELP! Corrupt attachments again 3rd'd considering the file size issue that Gary mentioned. Seen that before too. On Jan 22, 2008 7:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second the notion on the NIC. If you're using MB NICs, see if there's updated drivers, or put in a good Intel card or similar and try it again. BTDT. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: HELP! Corrupt attachments again We ran into this where small attachments never had a problem. Start sending large attachments and it was reproducible. Ended up being a bad NIC at some level. Put a new NIC and the problem went away. Dell came out and swapped the system board and that fixed it permanently. From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:14 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: HELP! Corrupt attachments again Hi chaps, We are still getting ongoing problems with attachments being corrupt. In a group of about 15 people we see maybe two or three a day that get corrupted. As I've said before, im 100% certain it's not exchange as I can't find a thing wrong, no error logs, no proof of corruption, no errors when running isinteg etc, and nothing NOTHING is reproducible. At the moment I'm sending two emails every 10 mins to a test account on the server, each email has two attachments (pdf and jpg). So far I've opened and viewed the same attachments 60 times and haven't found a thing wrong. My believe is that the attachments are getting corrupt before it hits their network. Their .co.uk name goes through an ISPs mail sevrer where it's filtering for spam and virus before being forward on. Their .COM goes through a full email-store-and-forward type filtering service with another provider. I've suggested that they get the ISPs to dump their mail in a pop box, and have the exchange box collect them from there. Once done, if a user has a problem, we can check the copy in the pop box and, if the attachment is corrupt there as well, we know it's not their server. If it isn't corrupt in the pop box, then, well, then I'm back to square one. Their connection is supplied by the serviced office company they lease from, but while it's very well used, it doesn't show any packet loss indicative of connections being dropped, so I'm inclined to rule this out. Has anyone got any other suggestions on how to bug hunt this ? Olly __ The information contained in this E-mail message, including any attached files transmitted, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the sole use of the individual(s) named above. If you are the intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you, the reader of this message, are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you should not further disseminate, distribute or forward this E-mail message. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the material from your computer system. This message is provided for information purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments in any jurisdiction. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Corruptions - redux
Chaps, On my hunt for corruptions in emails, can you answer this for me. Say an email with an attachments is received by an exchange server perfectly normally without any corruption. Is it possible that, when the outlook client in exchange mode displays the email, that a corruption in the connection between the client and the server is able to corrupt the copy of the attachment on the server itself? That is, if the client were a laptop using wifi, and the wifi signal was shitty, would that poor connection be able to corrupt the attachment when the client tried to open it ? (I assume yes is the answer). If so, would that corruption be one off (ie try again later and it's fine) or would it corrupt the attachment in the datastore perminently? (ie try again later and its now always corrupt) ? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corruptions - redux
No. Outlook and Exchange communicate using an RPC based protocol - MAPI. MAPI has in-built checks to verify that what is sent is what is received. Even the earliest of mail user agent protocols (POP) had some checks - a POP client is told how large, in bytes, a message is and uses that to verify an incoming message. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Corruptions - redux Chaps, On my hunt for corruptions in emails, can you answer this for me. Say an email with an attachments is received by an exchange server perfectly normally without any corruption. Is it possible that, when the outlook client in exchange mode displays the email, that a corruption in the connection between the client and the server is able to corrupt the copy of the attachment on the server itself? That is, if the client were a laptop using wifi, and the wifi signal was shitty, would that poor connection be able to corrupt the attachment when the client tried to open it ? (I assume yes is the answer). If so, would that corruption be one off (ie try again later and it's fine) or would it corrupt the attachment in the datastore perminently? (ie try again later and its now always corrupt) ? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
Had a little look at their website and I agree don't see much value added either.The thing that puzzles me with the comment below from a satisfied customer, how does doing offline defrags help you with achieving a high uptime since you need to stop services to run it? Uptime and Availability: After just one use of GOexchange, our information stores were reduced by 45-50% with thousands of errors, warnings, and inconsistencies corrected. Without GOexchange we would be unable to provide the current level of 99.999% uptime and availability to our customers. Think I only needed to run it once and I've worked with exchange since version 5.5. Also they mention defragging the db. Doesn't exchange do that by itself??? Unless they mean an offline defrag which MS even says only if necessary. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response If Dane Cue would like to join this forum (or another that is not vendor controlled) I'll be happy to discuss each and every point. Otherwise, why bother? I've seen much of the material in that response before. I think a number of other MVPs would agree. He can call me crazy or out in left field or whatever he wants. And I can do the same. In most of this, he says the same thing that I and others said - just using different word that spin the answer differently. Several times he asserts that I mean something that I did not say. From an insurance perspective - I absolutely agree - good backups are important. I don't know what other value-add they truly provide, other than disaster recovery. I can provide documentation to back up my statements. I can provide a quote from one of the key developers for ESE that says you don't do these things on a regular basis. To wit: ...I'm glad you'd never recommend a tool that would recommend offline defrag as standard maintenance! :) I generally don't recommend regular offline defrags myself, believing if that becomes necessary it is an issue that should be fixed in ESE or whatever app (Exch/AD) is using ESE. Lucid8 has a vested interest in selling their product. I respect that. They do provide some value-add with reporting. But that is all that I see. And I don't approve of their marketing. I personally think that it is misleading. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Event ID 9667
You got the version of MFCMAPI (MAPI Editor) from CodePlex, right? You want to create a session, login, and open the relevant message store. Then you want to do a GetNamesfromIDs with the default parameters. It should work on any box where Outlook has been installed. Once the limit of named properties are exhausted, a store will no longer accept any messages that require the creation of a named property. So.it's non-optimal. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:02 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Event ID 9667 No need to apologize...in fact I should thank you for taking the time to educate me...Now I know how much I don't know! As for MFCMAPI, I downloaded the tool, but I'm not sure how to use it. Do I need to install it on EXCH box or on a client and what option would I have to choose to see properties? What am I looking for? Since there are no servers to replicate PF to, what would be the consequences of leaving it as is, aside from the annoying errors in event log? Thanks again On Jan 22, 2008 1:29 PM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I got carried away with the explanation and didn't answer the questions. I would guess that the spam appliance is creating the custom properties, but I don't know that for certain. Using MFCMAPI to examine the properties is likely a good way to identify that. Most Exchange Services run as LocalSystem, so that is why you see SYSTEM creating the properties. Custom properties are a store attribute. As far as I know (I could ping someone at MSFT, but I don't know how long it would take to get a response on this), there is no documented way to remove custom properties from a store. I've always moved the content and deleted the store. With a PF, you'd have to replicate it to another server instead of using Move Mailbox. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:22 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Event ID 9667 In general, any message accepted via SMTP (or via drop/pickup folders) is a non-promoted message until it is processed by the store. This means that it gets stored into the STM file in an Exchange 2003 database (this is an optimization for IMAP and POP3, but not for Outlook clients). There is no STM file in Exchange 2007, so all messages are automagically promoted to the MAPI property store. Every common header in a message stored in the database is assigned a property ID. Every X-* header is assigned a custom property ID. In general, even over millions of messages, there are only a few hundred X-* headers. What we are seeing more and more commonly, especially with message archiving and certain anti-spam solutions, is that they add a metric buttload of custom X-* headers. For example, X-1, X-2, . X-9, etc. etc. Not the values of the headers, but custom headers themselves (the parts before the colon in the textual representation of the message). Now, when you move a mailbox to another store, all the messages in that mailbox lose their custom properties (why, I dunno - that seems like a bug to me). That's the standard workaround. Once you've moved all the mailboxes out of the store with too many properties, you delete the store. MFCMAPI can show you all the named properties on a store. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Event ID 9667 Here are the named properties it's trying to create: X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID X-Content-Filtered-By X-Original-Date X-TFF-CGPSA-Filter X-TFF-CGPSA-Version X-Puresend X-Fantasy-No-Post X-filenames By it do you mean EXCH or the spam appliance? According to the event log, the user attempting to create the named property is SYSTEM. The mailbox is actually a folder under Public Folders. So you're saying the properties are not needed and by moving the mailbox to another store, they'll get removed? On Jan 22, 2008 11:59 AM, Michael B. Smith mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This almost certainly means that it is creating a custom X-* header. It shouldn't do that. To eliminate the properties, you can move a mailbox that contains the properties to another store. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:33 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Event ID 9667 If you're referring to the number after quota limit, it's 8192. There are like 6 or 7 of these events with unique named properties in the APP log. From the named
RE: GoExchange Response
They are talking about an off-line defrag. GoExchange is basically a GUI wrapper around offline defrags and isinteg. They consider downtime only in regards to unscheduled downtime. So, if they have scheduled 24 hours of downtime every Sunday that doesnt count. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: René de Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Had a little look at their website and I agree dont see much value added either.The thing that puzzles me with the comment below from a satisfied customer, how does doing offline defrags help you with achieving a high uptime since you need to stop services to run it? Uptime and Availability: After just one use of GOexchange, our information stores were reduced by 45-50% with thousands of errors, warnings, and inconsistencies corrected. Without GOexchange we would be unable to provide the current level of 99.999% uptime and availability to our customers. Think I only needed to run it once and Ive worked with exchange since version 5.5. Also they mention defragging the db. Doesnt exchange do that by itself??? Unless they mean an offline defrag which MS even says only if necessary. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response If Dane Cue would like to join this forum (or another that is not vendor controlled) Ill be happy to discuss each and every point. Otherwise, why bother? Ive seen much of the material in that response before. I think a number of other MVPs would agree. He can call me crazy or out in left field or whatever he wants. And I can do the same. In most of this, he says the same thing that I and others said just using different word that spin the answer differently. Several times he asserts that I mean something that I did not say. From an insurance perspective I absolutely agree good backups are important. I dont know what other value-add they truly provide, other than disaster recovery. I can provide documentation to back up my statements. I can provide a quote from one of the key developers for ESE that says you dont do these things on a regular basis. To wit: I'm glad you'd never recommend a tool that would recommend offline defrag as standard maintenance! :) I generally don't recommend regular offline defrags myself, believing if that becomes necessary it is an issue that should be fixed in ESE or whatever app (Exch/AD) is using ESE. Lucid8 has a vested interest in selling their product. I respect that. They do provide some value-add with reporting. But that is all that I see. And I dont approve of their marketing. I personally think that it is misleading. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. _ *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anyone using CCR in production?
Neil, I guess that eliminates Dell hardware. J Seriously though, according to a recent MS webcast: How Microsoft IT Implemented New Storage Designs for Exchange Server 2007, MS claims they are running 99% of the environment using CCR and DAS. Anyone see that? I for one would like to hear some thoughts on that as well as CCR backup/recovery good, bad and the ugly. Chuck From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I saw one of our customers last year who is running Exchange 2000 and wants to go to Exchange 2007. No clustering is used in Exchange 2000 and no clustering is required for Exchange 2007 because, as far as I can remember, they said they had only had 1 unscheduled outage in the last 5 years. It's amazing what can be done with well-redundant single servers. J From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 January 2008 18:33 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I would say that clustering is falling out of favor, not CCR specifically. Clustering adds a lot of cost and a fair bit of maintenance complexity to get a very small up-time improvement. And if your operations folks aren't good - it can lead to worse up-time instead of improved up-time. I'm of the opinion (and it is just that - my opinion) that if you buy good hardware to start with (redundant fans, redundant power supplies, name-brand memory, etc.), that clustering isn't worth the cost. I haven't played with Windows 2008 dispersed clusters yet. They may make it easier and more worthwhile. I dunno yet. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Pete Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Anyone using CCR in production? Ive had a CCR implementation with 10 storage groups and about 200gb of data running on RTM code since last August with no issues. Works great, smooth and reliable failover ..so far. Why is CCR falling out of favor ? I can see where it adds some complexity in setup but the MNS style clustering makes that a lot easier. It does make patching more difficult .. I still need to do SP1 when I have a spare minute. Pete Howard | Systems Engineer MCSE 3.51-2003 | ESX VCP * EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43:00 AM Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? The first two lines are about a particular client using CCR, sorry. The last line is a generic statement. I wasn't clear... Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? So you guys aren't using CCR or SCC Michael? From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? 30K+ users, 2 GB hard limits, individual databases limited to 100 GB. Geodispersion is coming, using Windows Server 2008. Backup is LCR to cheap disk. I'm seeing more folks moving away from clustering with LCR and SCR. Good riddance, in my opinion. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Alex Fontana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anyone using CCR in production? Curious to know what folks have seen in the field when using CCR. How many users, how large are your databases, any issues you've encountered. Any geo-dispersed clusters, special quorum configs, and how are you backing all of it up? thanks! -alex ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corruptions - redux
Well, we've had a few reports now from mac users to internally, all running Apple Mail (IMAP) or Entourage so I'm ruling out any client OS/Outlook version oddness. We had another one this morning that got corrupt, but that was smaller than our test emails, and so I don't see that file size alone can be the cause. I can't see we have any option at the moment other than to move to emails being dropped in to a pop account, and then collected by the server from there. This way we can see if the original email is corrupt or not. As the ISP has pointed out in one of their not-really-helpful emails, if the connection from their server to the exchange server was being cut off mid-send then the email would (should) be marked as incomplete and then resent. Olly -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 13:14 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corruptions - redux No. Outlook and Exchange communicate using an RPC based protocol - MAPI. MAPI has in-built checks to verify that what is sent is what is received. Even the earliest of mail user agent protocols (POP) had some checks - a POP client is told how large, in bytes, a message is and uses that to verify an incoming message. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Corruptions - redux Chaps, On my hunt for corruptions in emails, can you answer this for me. Say an email with an attachments is received by an exchange server perfectly normally without any corruption. Is it possible that, when the outlook client in exchange mode displays the email, that a corruption in the connection between the client and the server is able to corrupt the copy of the attachment on the server itself? That is, if the client were a laptop using wifi, and the wifi signal was shitty, would that poor connection be able to corrupt the attachment when the client tried to open it ? (I assume yes is the answer). If so, would that corruption be one off (ie try again later and it's fine) or would it corrupt the attachment in the datastore perminently? (ie try again later and its now always corrupt) ? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corruptions - redux
You may need to look at the physical messages themselves to determine if you can determine a pattern of corruption. As another poster said yesterday (I think it was yesterday), it's probably the A/V software somewhere along the way. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:42 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corruptions - redux Well, we've had a few reports now from mac users to internally, all running Apple Mail (IMAP) or Entourage so I'm ruling out any client OS/Outlook version oddness. We had another one this morning that got corrupt, but that was smaller than our test emails, and so I don't see that file size alone can be the cause. I can't see we have any option at the moment other than to move to emails being dropped in to a pop account, and then collected by the server from there. This way we can see if the original email is corrupt or not. As the ISP has pointed out in one of their not-really-helpful emails, if the connection from their server to the exchange server was being cut off mid-send then the email would (should) be marked as incomplete and then resent. Olly -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 13:14 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corruptions - redux No. Outlook and Exchange communicate using an RPC based protocol - MAPI. MAPI has in-built checks to verify that what is sent is what is received. Even the earliest of mail user agent protocols (POP) had some checks - a POP client is told how large, in bytes, a message is and uses that to verify an incoming message. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Corruptions - redux Chaps, On my hunt for corruptions in emails, can you answer this for me. Say an email with an attachments is received by an exchange server perfectly normally without any corruption. Is it possible that, when the outlook client in exchange mode displays the email, that a corruption in the connection between the client and the server is able to corrupt the copy of the attachment on the server itself? That is, if the client were a laptop using wifi, and the wifi signal was shitty, would that poor connection be able to corrupt the attachment when the client tried to open it ? (I assume yes is the answer). If so, would that corruption be one off (ie try again later and it's fine) or would it corrupt the attachment in the datastore perminently? (ie try again later and its now always corrupt) ? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anyone using CCR in production?
Do you have a specific question? DAS can be cheap. If you plan for the I/O load, and good backups, it'll work just fine. The replication options, CCR/LCR/SCR - they are great. I wish MSFT had done that technology years ago. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Robinson, Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? Neil, I guess that eliminates Dell hardware. J Seriously though, according to a recent MS webcast: How Microsoft IT Implemented New Storage Designs for Exchange Server 2007, MS claims they are running 99% of the environment using CCR and DAS. Anyone see that? I for one would like to hear some thoughts on that as well as CCR backup/recovery good, bad and the ugly. Chuck From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I saw one of our customers last year who is running Exchange 2000 and wants to go to Exchange 2007. No clustering is used in Exchange 2000 and no clustering is required for Exchange 2007 because, as far as I can remember, they said they had only had 1 unscheduled outage in the last 5 years. It's amazing what can be done with well-redundant single servers. J From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 January 2008 18:33 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? I would say that clustering is falling out of favor, not CCR specifically. Clustering adds a lot of cost and a fair bit of maintenance complexity to get a very small up-time improvement. And if your operations folks aren't good - it can lead to worse up-time instead of improved up-time. I'm of the opinion (and it is just that - my opinion) that if you buy good hardware to start with (redundant fans, redundant power supplies, name-brand memory, etc.), that clustering isn't worth the cost. I haven't played with Windows 2008 dispersed clusters yet. They may make it easier and more worthwhile. I dunno yet. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Pete Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Anyone using CCR in production? Ive had a CCR implementation with 10 storage groups and about 200gb of data running on RTM code since last August with no issues. Works great, smooth and reliable failover ..so far. Why is CCR falling out of favor ? I can see where it adds some complexity in setup but the MNS style clustering makes that a lot easier. It does make patching more difficult .. I still need to do SP1 when I have a spare minute. Pete Howard | Systems Engineer MCSE 3.51-2003 | ESX VCP * EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:43:00 AM Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? The first two lines are about a particular client using CCR, sorry. The last line is a generic statement. I wasn't clear. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? So you guys aren't using CCR or SCC Michael? From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anyone using CCR in production? 30K+ users, 2 GB hard limits, individual databases limited to 100 GB. Geodispersion is coming, using Windows Server 2008. Backup is LCR to cheap disk. I'm seeing more folks moving away from clustering with LCR and SCR. Good riddance, in my opinion. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Alex Fontana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anyone using CCR in production? Curious to know what folks have seen in the field when using CCR. How many users, how large are your databases, any issues you've encountered. Any geo-dispersed clusters, special quorum configs, and how are you backing all of it up? thanks! -alex ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Corruptions - redux
Yeah. No AV on the server it's all done by the ISP. The .co.uk is with one isp, .com with the other, and the issue seems more apparent with the .co.uk ISP than the .com one (ie we cant see it with the .com at all but they don't use that domain too much so it's not assured). Bugger this for a game of cricket !!! -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 14:21 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corruptions - redux You may need to look at the physical messages themselves to determine if you can determine a pattern of corruption. As another poster said yesterday (I think it was yesterday), it's probably the A/V software somewhere along the way. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:42 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corruptions - redux Well, we've had a few reports now from mac users to internally, all running Apple Mail (IMAP) or Entourage so I'm ruling out any client OS/Outlook version oddness. We had another one this morning that got corrupt, but that was smaller than our test emails, and so I don't see that file size alone can be the cause. I can't see we have any option at the moment other than to move to emails being dropped in to a pop account, and then collected by the server from there. This way we can see if the original email is corrupt or not. As the ISP has pointed out in one of their not-really-helpful emails, if the connection from their server to the exchange server was being cut off mid-send then the email would (should) be marked as incomplete and then resent. Olly -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 13:14 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Corruptions - redux No. Outlook and Exchange communicate using an RPC based protocol - MAPI. MAPI has in-built checks to verify that what is sent is what is received. Even the earliest of mail user agent protocols (POP) had some checks - a POP client is told how large, in bytes, a message is and uses that to verify an incoming message. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Corruptions - redux Chaps, On my hunt for corruptions in emails, can you answer this for me. Say an email with an attachments is received by an exchange server perfectly normally without any corruption. Is it possible that, when the outlook client in exchange mode displays the email, that a corruption in the connection between the client and the server is able to corrupt the copy of the attachment on the server itself? That is, if the client were a laptop using wifi, and the wifi signal was shitty, would that poor connection be able to corrupt the attachment when the client tried to open it ? (I assume yes is the answer). If so, would that corruption be one off (ie try again later and it's fine) or would it corrupt the attachment in the datastore perminently? (ie try again later and its now always corrupt) ? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
It's looking more like that's the consensus Rene'. Thanks for your time to look and respond. Tom From: René de Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Had a little look at their website and I agree don't see much value added either.The thing that puzzles me with the comment below from a satisfied customer, how does doing offline defrags help you with achieving a high uptime since you need to stop services to run it? Uptime and Availability: After just one use of GOexchange, our information stores were reduced by 45-50% with thousands of errors, warnings, and inconsistencies corrected. Without GOexchange we would be unable to provide the current level of 99.999% uptime and availability to our customers. Think I only needed to run it once and I've worked with exchange since version 5.5. Also they mention defragging the db. Doesn't exchange do that by itself??? Unless they mean an offline defrag which MS even says only if necessary. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response If Dane Cue would like to join this forum (or another that is not vendor controlled) I'll be happy to discuss each and every point. Otherwise, why bother? I've seen much of the material in that response before. I think a number of other MVPs would agree. He can call me crazy or out in left field or whatever he wants. And I can do the same. In most of this, he says the same thing that I and others said - just using different word that spin the answer differently. Several times he asserts that I mean something that I did not say. From an insurance perspective - I absolutely agree - good backups are important. I don't know what other value-add they truly provide, other than disaster recovery. I can provide documentation to back up my statements. I can provide a quote from one of the key developers for ESE that says you don't do these things on a regular basis. To wit: ...I'm glad you'd never recommend a tool that would recommend offline defrag as standard maintenance! :) I generally don't recommend regular offline defrags myself, believing if that becomes necessary it is an issue that should be fixed in ESE or whatever app (Exch/AD) is using ESE. Lucid8 has a vested interest in selling their product. I respect that. They do provide some value-add with reporting. But that is all that I see. And I don't approve of their marketing. I personally think that it is misleading. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Old 0ut 0f 0ffice Messages
Running Outlook.exe /cleanrules inside the domain and on terminal server resolved our issue. Thanks everybody. From: Miller Bonnie L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:47 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Old 0ut 0f 0ffice Messages In their Outlook, if you click Tools, Out of Office Assistant, then the Rules button (bottom left of the window), are there additional rules defined here? If so, try deleting. If not, you might want to google mdbvu32. -Bonnie From: McCready, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:34 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Old 0ut 0f 0ffice Messages We have a couple of users who deliver two Out Of Office messages when they turn the option on. The first one is a recent Out Of Office from today, the second one is an Old Of Office from the last time they used the feature (December for example). Has anybody else seen this? (Exchange 2007 Outlook 2003). Thanks. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: HELP! Corrupt attachments again
[...] and having spoken to the ISP it's a typically response (no one else is having problems) and their logs don’t show anything to them outta the norm (their AV logs don’t show any cock-ups). Unless you have access to the plain text logs and spool directories from the A/V system at the ISP you cannot know that to be true. If you can install a more capable mail client on each end (such as Thunderbird perhaps) then you will have easy access to the plain text source of each mail (via ctrl + u in TB client) and can inspect the source encoded mail and destination copy more closely. Are the mime headers correct in terms of offset. are things being truncated? Helpful line ending conversions mussing things up? 7bit-8bit conversion? If they refuse to work with you, then you are likely up the proverbial creek since it is out of your control. You will have to switch ISPs or bring all portions of the mail system in-house (of which the latter is normally a better solution for all but the smallest shops anyway IMO). There's a *very* slight chance of a network problem being at fault. Cisco devices have a feature that does deep inspection of certain protocols at the application level. Unfortunately, fixup protocol smtp is buggy and is known to cause mail deliverability problems though NOT usually ones like you describe. In any case no fixup protocol smtp should be entered into the config of any Cisco device between sender and receiver. As other posters have noted, the various mail transport protocols have long had built-in checks and balances to ensure proper delivery. You can't do rar...pity. Can you have people password protect their zip files/office docs? ~JasonG -- ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
IPod Wifi Email
A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~campbell logo.jpg
RE: IPod Wifi Email
The Ipod touch comes with Wifi standard it can attach to secure ones, there's a new Software add-on for 20 bucks (unless grandfathered) that adds the capability for it to do Email, Stocks, Weather and more. the Mail part can be setup for POP, IMAP and SMTP and it can do IMAP over SSL for exchange connections and it works okay. I have an Iphone myself but only do personal email since we don't have wifi @ work and don't support any devices we don't give out. Id say you're penning up a can of worms to give him access, unless you get pressure from above and in that case tell them you need one in order to get it working correctly :) From: Theochares, George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:47 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: IPod Wifi Email A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. _ This e-mail, including attachments, contains information that is confidential and may be protected by attorney/client or other privileges. This e-mail, including attachments, constitutes non-public information intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me by e-mail reply and delete the original message and any attachments from your system. _ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~campbell logo.jpg
RE: IPod Wifi Email
If you had a policy in place that did not allow 'non' work supplied items you could stop other people bringing in their own kit. What about the possibilty of data leaks if people bring in their own kit, or virus's, trojan, worms etc ending up on your network? From: Theochares, George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 15:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: IPod Wifi Email A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.clearswift.com ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~campbell logo.jpg
Re: IPod Wifi Email
For these types of issues, I like to refer to my bucket of sand in the corner of my office. On Jan 23, 2008 10:47 AM, Theochares, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: IPod Wifi Email
Got a hammer in your desk drawer to go with it? -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: IPod Wifi Email For these types of issues, I like to refer to my bucket of sand in the corner of my office. On Jan 23, 2008 10:47 AM, Theochares, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: IPod Wifi Email
I find playing cricket with devices like the ipod touch very satisfying :) -Original Message- From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 16:20 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: IPod Wifi Email Got a hammer in your desk drawer to go with it? -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: IPod Wifi Email For these types of issues, I like to refer to my bucket of sand in the corner of my office. On Jan 23, 2008 10:47 AM, Theochares, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ _ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]. Thank You. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: IPod Wifi Email
Hammer? They should be using their face... On Jan 23, 2008 8:19 AM, Campbell, Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Got a hammer in your desk drawer to go with it? -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: IPod Wifi Email For these types of issues, I like to refer to my bucket of sand in the corner of my office. On Jan 23, 2008 10:47 AM, Theochares, George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
to RSG or to not RSG
I find myself needing to restore my entire datastore. The question is, is it better to: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or 4) Use an entirely different plan of which I'm as yet unaware It is perfectly acceptable to bring the datastore offline. What are the pros and cons of each strategy? My biggest concerns are stability and integrity of the final data, and total time spent by yours truly. I'm running Exchange 2003 SP2 and NtBackup. I'm leaning toward number 1, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with exchange 2000 than X2K3 and that was the only way then. Thanks for any insights, Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: HELP! Corrupt attachments again
Can you have people password protect their zip files/office docs? Not really. We can advise the users to advise their various clients to rar the files, but it's unlikely to happen. Their .com uses a filtering service with access to the logs and much better management, along with the ability to filter copies to pop3 accounts etc. In all, I think we are drawing a line under it, taking a deep breath, and telling the client that we advise them, going forward, to move both domains to a new service with better tools. Thanks for all the help with the advice. I'll let you know how much of my legs they rip off ! -Original Message- From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 15:15 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: HELP! Corrupt attachments again [...] and having spoken to the ISP it's a typically response (no one else is having problems) and their logs don’t show anything to them outta the norm (their AV logs don’t show any cock-ups). Unless you have access to the plain text logs and spool directories from the A/V system at the ISP you cannot know that to be true. If you can install a more capable mail client on each end (such as Thunderbird perhaps) then you will have easy access to the plain text source of each mail (via ctrl + u in TB client) and can inspect the source encoded mail and destination copy more closely. Are the mime headers correct in terms of offset. are things being truncated? Helpful line ending conversions mussing things up? 7bit-8bit conversion? If they refuse to work with you, then you are likely up the proverbial creek since it is out of your control. You will have to switch ISPs or bring all portions of the mail system in-house (of which the latter is normally a better solution for all but the smallest shops anyway IMO). There's a *very* slight chance of a network problem being at fault. Cisco devices have a feature that does deep inspection of certain protocols at the application level. Unfortunately, fixup protocol smtp is buggy and is known to cause mail deliverability problems though NOT usually ones like you describe. In any case no fixup protocol smtp should be entered into the config of any Cisco device between sender and receiver. As other posters have noted, the various mail transport protocols have long had built-in checks and balances to ensure proper delivery. You can't do rar...pity. Can you have people password protect their zip files/office docs? ~JasonG -- ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
I have found this to be an interesting thread. Chasing down some of the quoted testimonials, I Googled Steve McHargue Chief Information Officer Jackson Walker LLP , which led me to an InformationWeek article which pretty much is another GoExchange and gives more details about the issues they were having. http://www.informationweek.com/software/messaging/166403975 Jackson Walker had been using Veritas' KVS product for archiving, but while KVS had extracted over 200 gigabytes of data from the Exchange Server, the databases themselves were not getting any smaller, and the number of errors and warnings were growing along with the time it took to backup and restore. NO SH!T! They don't get smaller unless you do an online defrag. Dave Lum - Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:54 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response It's looking more like that's the consensus Rene'. Thanks for your time to look and respond. Tom From: René de Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Had a little look at their website and I agree don't see much value added either.The thing that puzzles me with the comment below from a satisfied customer, how does doing offline defrags help you with achieving a high uptime since you need to stop services to run it? Uptime and Availability: After just one use of GOexchange, our information stores were reduced by 45-50% with thousands of errors, warnings, and inconsistencies corrected. Without GOexchange we would be unable to provide the current level of 99.999% uptime and availability to our customers. Think I only needed to run it once and I've worked with exchange since version 5.5. Also they mention defragging the db. Doesn't exchange do that by itself??? Unless they mean an offline defrag which MS even says only if necessary. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response If Dane Cue would like to join this forum (or another that is not vendor controlled) I'll be happy to discuss each and every point. Otherwise, why bother? I've seen much of the material in that response before. I think a number of other MVPs would agree. He can call me crazy or out in left field or whatever he wants. And I can do the same. In most of this, he says the same thing that I and others said - just using different word that spin the answer differently. Several times he asserts that I mean something that I did not say. From an insurance perspective - I absolutely agree - good backups are important. I don't know what other value-add they truly provide, other than disaster recovery. I can provide documentation to back up my statements. I can provide a quote from one of the key developers for ESE that says you don't do these things on a regular basis. To wit: ...I'm glad you'd never recommend a tool that would recommend offline defrag as standard maintenance! :) I generally don't recommend regular offline defrags myself, believing if that becomes necessary it is an issue that should be fixed in ESE or whatever app (Exch/AD) is using ESE. Lucid8 has a vested interest in selling their product. I respect that. They do provide some value-add with reporting. But that is all that I see. And I don't approve of their marketing. I personally think that it is misleading. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information. *** ~ Ninja Email
RE: to RSG or to not RSG
You have to answer first - what is the goal? Why are you doing the restore? Does it impact all users or just one (or a few?). Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: to RSG or to not RSG I find myself needing to restore my entire datastore. The question is, is it better to: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or 4) Use an entirely different plan of which I'm as yet unaware It is perfectly acceptable to bring the datastore offline. What are the pros and cons of each strategy? My biggest concerns are stability and integrity of the final data, and total time spent by yours truly. I'm running Exchange 2003 SP2 and NtBackup. I'm leaning toward number 1, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with exchange 2000 than X2K3 and that was the only way then. Thanks for any insights, Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Size Error
Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: GoExchange Response
Talk about unaware of the concept. I cant beleive they printed that. On Jan 23, 2008 11:40 AM, David Lum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found this to be an interesting thread. Chasing down some of the quoted testimonials, I Googled Steve McHargue Chief Information Officer Jackson Walker LLP , which led me to an InformationWeek article which pretty much is another GoExchange and gives more details about the issues they were having. http://www.informationweek.com/software/messaging/166403975 Jackson Walker had been using Veritas' KVS product for archiving, but while KVS had extracted over 200 gigabytes of data from the Exchange Server, the databases themselves were not getting any smaller, and the number of errors and warnings were growing along with the time it took to backup and restore. NO SH!T! They don't get smaller unless you do an online defrag. Dave Lum - Systems Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (971)-222-1025 When you step on the brakes your life is in your foot's hands From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:54 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response It's looking more like that's the consensus Rene'. Thanks for your time to look and respond. Tom From: René de Haas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Had a little look at their website and I agree don't see much value added either.The thing that puzzles me with the comment below from a satisfied customer, how does doing offline defrags help you with achieving a high uptime since you need to stop services to run it? Uptime and Availability: After just one use of GOexchange, our information stores were reduced by 45-50% with thousands of errors, warnings, and inconsistencies corrected. Without GOexchange we would be unable to provide the current level of 99.999% uptime and availability to our customers. Think I only needed to run it once and I've worked with exchange since version 5.5. Also they mention defragging the db. Doesn't exchange do that by itself??? Unless they mean an offline defrag which MS even says only if necessary. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response If Dane Cue would like to join this forum (or another that is not vendor controlled) I'll be happy to discuss each and every point. Otherwise, why bother? I've seen much of the material in that response before. I think a number of other MVPs would agree. He can call me crazy or out in left field or whatever he wants. And I can do the same. In most of this, he says the same thing that I and others said – just using different word that spin the answer differently. Several times he asserts that I mean something that I did not say. From an insurance perspective – I absolutely agree – good backups are important. I don't know what other value-add they truly provide, other than disaster recovery. I can provide documentation to back up my statements. I can provide a quote from one of the key developers for ESE that says you don't do these things on a regular basis. To wit: …I'm glad you'd never recommend a tool that would recommend offline defrag as standard maintenance! :) I generally don't recommend regular offline defrags myself, believing if that becomes necessary it is an issue that should be fixed in ESE or whatever app (Exch/AD) is using ESE. Lucid8 has a vested interest in selling their product. I respect that. They do provide some value-add with reporting. But that is all that I see. And I don't approve of their marketing. I personally think that it is misleading. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:48 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. *** The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you have received this
RE: to RSG or to not RSG
I wouldn't have done it that way, but that should be an ok way. Given what you've said, I'd take a dump of the crappy hardware and restore it on the new hardware. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG It affects everyone. I need to restore the entire Datastore. I had a mainboard failure and restored the server to crappy temporary hardware. Now the new hardware is ready and I want to move the live data to the new hardware. I didn't do it with swing migrations because it took less time to reboot into the crappy hardware than it would have to build a machine to swing to. I prepped the new machine using one half the broken mirror from the original machine. Now I have two clones of the same machine and one has to come off line while I bring the other up. AD should be none the wiser. Then I restore the current database and go on my merry way. Bill Songstad -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:57 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG You have to answer first - what is the goal? Why are you doing the restore? Does it impact all users or just one (or a few?). Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: to RSG or to not RSG I find myself needing to restore my entire datastore. The question is, is it better to: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or 4) Use an entirely different plan of which I'm as yet unaware It is perfectly acceptable to bring the datastore offline. What are the pros and cons of each strategy? My biggest concerns are stability and integrity of the final data, and total time spent by yours truly. I'm running Exchange 2003 SP2 and NtBackup. I'm leaning toward number 1, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with exchange 2000 than X2K3 and that was the only way then. Thanks for any insights, Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error Anomaly
You need to look at the message tracking log on party B's exchange server. If you've copied the SMTP conversation properly, then party B's exchange server is generating a NDR after reception is complete. The message tracking log should tell you an error reason why. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Anomaly This one has me stumped so far. Party A sends a message with a small attachment to party B. Party A receives a NDR with this error message: This message is larger than the current system limit or the recipient's mailbox is full. Create a shorter message body or remove attachments and try sending it again. party.a.server.name #5.2.3 Party B's SMTP log shows only: EHLO Party A's domain MAIL FROM Party A RCPT TO Party B DATA +[EMAIL PROTECTED] QUIT Party A's domain I don't have access to Party A's logs. I had party A send the same message to a different Exchange server that is run by a different organization, different ISP, the only thing in common is that both are Exchange 2003. Party A received the same error message. Anyone know what is going on? Roger C. Scudder Scudder Consulting Voice: (610) 622-2293 Cell: (610) 733-6948 Fax: (206) 350-5615 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: to RSG or to not RSG
Well for GOD's SAKE don't use GoExchange. Sheesh! Bill, I've successfully done #1, but your situation may be different. What caused the problem in the first place? If you restore to the same datastore without correcting the problem that caused this in the first place, your only delaying another failure. Another solution would be to install Exchange on another box if hardware is available and restore to that, then redo the original box and migrate the users over gracefully. Performing an ExMerge could cause problems and loss of some email. By nature of how it works, Exmerge will not export an email within an email and some attachments as well. Your best bet is to restore to a different store. My 2 Cents! From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: to RSG or to not RSG I find myself needing to restore my entire datastore. The question is, is it better to: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or 4) Use an entirely different plan of which I'm as yet unaware It is perfectly acceptable to bring the datastore offline. What are the pros and cons of each strategy? My biggest concerns are stability and integrity of the final data, and total time spent by yours truly. I'm running Exchange 2003 SP2 and NtBackup. I'm leaning toward number 1, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with exchange 2000 than X2K3 and that was the only way then. Thanks for any insights, Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: to RSG or to not RSG
Option 1 is what I would do. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG Yeah me too, what do you think about the method? I was thinking one of the following: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or But I don't have enough experience to know the pros and cons of each. Bill Songstad Director of Technology Operations | Washington Credit Union League [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 206.340.4837 | 800.552.0680 ext. 117 | www.waleague.org Washington's Credit Unions. together. better. -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:20 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG I wouldn't have done it that way, but that should be an ok way. Given what you've said, I'd take a dump of the crappy hardware and restore it on the new hardware. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG It affects everyone. I need to restore the entire Datastore. I had a mainboard failure and restored the server to crappy temporary hardware. Now the new hardware is ready and I want to move the live data to the new hardware. I didn't do it with swing migrations because it took less time to reboot into the crappy hardware than it would have to build a machine to swing to. I prepped the new machine using one half the broken mirror from the original machine. Now I have two clones of the same machine and one has to come off line while I bring the other up. AD should be none the wiser. Then I restore the current database and go on my merry way. Bill Songstad -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:57 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG You have to answer first - what is the goal? Why are you doing the restore? Does it impact all users or just one (or a few?). Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: to RSG or to not RSG I find myself needing to restore my entire datastore. The question is, is it better to: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or 4) Use an entirely different plan of which I'm as yet unaware It is perfectly acceptable to bring the datastore offline. What are the pros and cons of each strategy? My biggest concerns are stability and integrity of the final data, and total time spent by yours truly. I'm running Exchange 2003 SP2 and NtBackup. I'm leaning toward number 1, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with exchange 2000 than X2K3 and that was the only way then. Thanks for any insights, Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Don't argue that with Pamela Anderson!! From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Rollup 3 vs. SP1
I'm having trouble with Mac Mail IMAP connectivity to Exchange 2007. I'm seeing lots of sites that say that many problerms were fixed with Exchange Rollup 3. I'm running SP 1 and I'm wondering if all of the Rollup 3 fixes are in SP1. Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Size ruined her. She was SO much prettier before all the surgery. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:43 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Don't argue that with Pamela Anderson!! From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Size Error
Sex change? Painstakingly sent to you from my Blackberry. - Original Message - From: Tim Vander Kooi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Wed Jan 23 12:57:26 2008 Subject: RE: Size Error Size ruined her. She was SO much prettier before all the surgery. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:43 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Don't argue that with Pamela Anderson!! From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn’t matter… From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Agreed! From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:57 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size ruined her. She was SO much prettier before all the surgery. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:43 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Don't argue that with Pamela Anderson!! From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
So you wouldn't have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn't have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Rollup 3 vs. SP1
Yes. All changes up to and including UR5 were in SP1. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Rollup 3 vs. SP1 I'm having trouble with Mac Mail IMAP connectivity to Exchange 2007. I'm seeing lots of sites that say that many problerms were fixed with Exchange Rollup 3. I'm running SP 1 and I'm wondering if all of the Rollup 3 fixes are in SP1. Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Doesn't do you much good to have it if you can't get to it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say 'I/O is cheap. From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn't have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: to RSG or to not RSG
Thanks for your feedback Michael and Tom. I really appreciate it. Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Well, then, size WOULD come into the equation at that point. From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Doesn't do you much good to have it if you can't get to it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say 'I/O is cheap. From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn't have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: to RSG or to not RSG
Good luck. From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:39 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG Thanks for your feedback Michael and Tom. I really appreciate it. Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Touche' From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Doesn't do you much good to have it if you can't get to it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say 'I/O is cheap. From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn't have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
PC you're not using the word right From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Touche' From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Doesn't do you much good to have it if you can't get to it. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say 'I/O is cheap. From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn't have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
tou·ché https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Ftouche (tōō-shā') Pronunciation Key http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html interj. Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument. From: Beckett, William (Bill) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:34 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error PC you're not using the word right From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Touche' From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Doesn’t do you much good to have it if you can’t get to it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say ‘I/O is cheap”. From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn’t have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn’t matter… From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~premium.gifspeaker.gif
RE: Size Error
SorryMac vs PC commercial From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error tou·ché https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Ftouche (tōō-shā') Pronunciation Key http://cache.lexico.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html interj. Used to acknowledge a hit in fencing or a successful criticism or an effective point in argument. From: Beckett, William (Bill) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:34 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error PC you're not using the word right From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Touche' From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Doesn’t do you much good to have it if you can’t get to it. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say ‘I/O is cheap”. From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Storage is cheap, or so I'm told... From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error So you wouldn’t have any problem with removing all of your message size and mailbox limits? From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn’t matter… From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~premium.gifspeaker.gif
RE: Size Error
That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Size Error
Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter… From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
Is my satire that bad? From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Thanks for the response William. I'll definitely look into that. Tom _ From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response The very first words of the response summarizes the niche market they have created.. Fear of loss compels us to protect ourselves. The perceived fear has nothing to do with the actual potential or occurrence of loss. I recommend NoExchange. Because messaging is important, you must monitor utilities running against your mission critical applications, including your Exchange Server. If you are a GoExchange customer, then NoExchange is for you! NoExchange will stop GoExchange while it is checking your Exchange database and run vital tests on it to ensure it is doing its job. GoExchange won't tell you when it is struggling to perform. The people at Lucid8 will tell you that no such utility is needed to check on GoExchange. GoExchange takes care of itself. Don't you fall for that. Oh sure this will extend the downtime GoExchange gives you and your users, but isn't that more important than maybe losing an email message or perhaps your entire store! NoExchange will reduce the potential for failure and maybe reduce your fear of failure. Just listen to our imaginery customers. I had no idea what GoExchange did or if I even needed it, but with NoExchange covering my back, I can sleep soundly. Well, that is until the boss pages me and asks why email is still offline. - satisfied customer #2. I know Exchange and if you use GoExchange, you need NoExchange. - improvising customer #1 From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: GoExchange Response
Tom is very sensitive about this subject. On Jan 23, 2008 3:56 PM, William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my satire that bad? From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Thanks for the response William. I'll definitely look into that. Tom From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response The very first words of the response summarizes the niche market they have created…. Fear of loss compels us to protect ourselves… The perceived fear has nothing to do with the actual potential or occurrence of loss. I recommend NoExchange. Because messaging is important, you must monitor utilities running against your mission critical applications, including your Exchange Server. If you are a GoExchange customer, then NoExchange is for you! NoExchange will stop GoExchange while it is checking your Exchange database and run vital tests on it to ensure it is doing its job. GoExchange won't tell you when it is struggling to perform. The people at Lucid8 will tell you that no such utility is needed to check on GoExchange. GoExchange takes care of itself. Don't you fall for that. Oh sure this will extend the downtime GoExchange gives you and your users, but isn't that more important than maybe losing an email message or perhaps your entire store! NoExchange will reduce the potential for failure and maybe reduce your fear of failure. Just listen to our imaginery customers… I had no idea what GoExchange did or if I even needed it, but with NoExchange covering my back, I can sleep soundly. Well, that is until the boss pages me and asks why email is still offline. – satisfied customer #2. I know Exchange and if you use GoExchange, you need NoExchange. – improvising customer #1 From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
And yes...It is that bad. -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: GoExchange Response Tom is very sensitive about this subject. On Jan 23, 2008 3:56 PM, William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my satire that bad? From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Thanks for the response William. I'll definitely look into that. Tom From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response The very first words of the response summarizes the niche market they have created Fear of loss compels us to protect ourselves... The perceived fear has nothing to do with the actual potential or occurrence of loss. I recommend NoExchange. Because messaging is important, you must monitor utilities running against your mission critical applications, including your Exchange Server. If you are a GoExchange customer, then NoExchange is for you! NoExchange will stop GoExchange while it is checking your Exchange database and run vital tests on it to ensure it is doing its job. GoExchange won't tell you when it is struggling to perform. The people at Lucid8 will tell you that no such utility is needed to check on GoExchange. GoExchange takes care of itself. Don't you fall for that. Oh sure this will extend the downtime GoExchange gives you and your users, but isn't that more important than maybe losing an email message or perhaps your entire store! NoExchange will reduce the potential for failure and maybe reduce your fear of failure. Just listen to our imaginery customers... I had no idea what GoExchange did or if I even needed it, but with NoExchange covering my back, I can sleep soundly. Well, that is until the boss pages me and asks why email is still offline. - satisfied customer #2. I know Exchange and if you use GoExchange, you need NoExchange. - improvising customer #1 From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
Naah, I was just playing along to see if anyone would notice. Someone did! From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:57 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Is my satire that bad? From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Thanks for the response William. I'll definitely look into that. Tom From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response The very first words of the response summarizes the niche market they have created Fear of loss compels us to protect ourselves... The perceived fear has nothing to do with the actual potential or occurrence of loss. I recommend NoExchange. Because messaging is important, you must monitor utilities running against your mission critical applications, including your Exchange Server. If you are a GoExchange customer, then NoExchange is for you! NoExchange will stop GoExchange while it is checking your Exchange database and run vital tests on it to ensure it is doing its job. GoExchange won't tell you when it is struggling to perform. The people at Lucid8 will tell you that no such utility is needed to check on GoExchange. GoExchange takes care of itself. Don't you fall for that. Oh sure this will extend the downtime GoExchange gives you and your users, but isn't that more important than maybe losing an email message or perhaps your entire store! NoExchange will reduce the potential for failure and maybe reduce your fear of failure. Just listen to our imaginery customers... I had no idea what GoExchange did or if I even needed it, but with NoExchange covering my back, I can sleep soundly. Well, that is until the boss pages me and asks why email is still offline. - satisfied customer #2. I know Exchange and if you use GoExchange, you need NoExchange. - improvising customer #1 From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: GoExchange Response
Me??? Sensitive about GoExchange??? Heck Nooo!! I wish I could get rid of the darn program. -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: GoExchange Response Tom is very sensitive about this subject. On Jan 23, 2008 3:56 PM, William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is my satire that bad? From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response Thanks for the response William. I'll definitely look into that. Tom From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: GoExchange Response The very first words of the response summarizes the niche market they have created Fear of loss compels us to protect ourselves... The perceived fear has nothing to do with the actual potential or occurrence of loss. I recommend NoExchange. Because messaging is important, you must monitor utilities running against your mission critical applications, including your Exchange Server. If you are a GoExchange customer, then NoExchange is for you! NoExchange will stop GoExchange while it is checking your Exchange database and run vital tests on it to ensure it is doing its job. GoExchange won't tell you when it is struggling to perform. The people at Lucid8 will tell you that no such utility is needed to check on GoExchange. GoExchange takes care of itself. Don't you fall for that. Oh sure this will extend the downtime GoExchange gives you and your users, but isn't that more important than maybe losing an email message or perhaps your entire store! NoExchange will reduce the potential for failure and maybe reduce your fear of failure. Just listen to our imaginery customers... I had no idea what GoExchange did or if I even needed it, but with NoExchange covering my back, I can sleep soundly. Well, that is until the boss pages me and asks why email is still offline. - satisfied customer #2. I know Exchange and if you use GoExchange, you need NoExchange. - improvising customer #1 From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: GoExchange Response List, I have a response from Lucid8 concerning their GoExchange product and the questions that were posted a week or so back. I've tried to post the response here but the Lyris server says its too large so if anyone want to read their response, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll forward it to you. It is in DOCX format. Sincerely, Tom Strader Server Systems Administrator NC Blumenthal Performing Arts Center 704.379.1285 Office | 704.444.2098 Fax http://www.linkedin.com/in/tstrader There are seldom good technological -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Anybody have any experience with IronPort C350's?
Particularly integrating with Exchange environment. I'm in the middle of an Exchange 2003-2007 migration, and I just had 4 of these things show up on my doorstep, and a project assigned to work with the vendor to install them. ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
N... I just acknowledging that we DO have ladies on the list... -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~
RE: Size Error
Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the
RE: Size Error
You also implied that there are gentlemen on the list. Let's hope they don't make a liar out of you... -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:04 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error N... I just acknowledging that we DO have ladies on the list... -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~
RE: Size Error
Any chance the sender's mailbox was at/near the send limit, and there wasn't room in their mailbox to add it to the Sent Items, so it was being rejected by their own mail server? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Re: Size Error
Just because she thinkgs she's sending you a 2MB attachment, doesnt mean she really is. EBKAC On Jan 23, 2008 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin
Re: Size Error
ooo, good call! Knowing the details of the NDR may be helpful. On Jan 23, 2008 5:14 PM, Campbell, Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any chance the sender's mailbox was at/near the send limit, and there wasn't room in their mailbox to add it to the Sent Items, so it was being rejected by their own mail server? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Size Error
Exact details of the NDR would be helpful here, I think. On Jan 23, 2008 1:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error
Mailbox Manager - Exchange 2003
I have a client who needs to begin a regular purging of information from their Exchange Servers in order to comply with their new retention policies. Basically, they want to purge everything from all folders (system created and the many, many, user created folders) after xx number of days, with the exception of calendar, contacts, tasks and a few user defined folders (and their subfolders). Can mailbox manager policies do this? I've used them before for custom folders, and quite frankly it was spotty. My thought is to set a single policy for all users (this is a 25 mailbox organization) and set the proper settings for each system defined folder, add the custom folders and settings, then enable the all other folder setting. Should these settings flow properly? Also, I recognize that Exchange 2007 has vastly improved the abilities of this functionality and can certainly use this reason as a catalyst to upgrade, but I don't want to lie :). So if Exchange 2003 can do it, but Exchange 2007 can do it that much better, I need to be able to portray that. Any help is, as always, much appreciated. Jason Jason Tierney, MCSE Vice President, Consulting Services Corporate Network Services Count on Us 20010 Fisher Ave, Suite E Poolesville, MD 20837 direct: 240-425-4441 | main: 301.948.8077 | fax: 301.349.2518 http://www.cornetser.comhttp://www.cornetser.com/ Best Place to Work, Alliance for Workplace Excellence – 2006 2007 ...ask me how to better manage your IT costs with PROSuite ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Tales of woe featuring Exchange 2007, Macs and Certs
I've just moved 10 Mac users from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2007. They are using Apple's Mail to connect to email. After a morning of fiddling and reconfiguring client programs, I have them successfully moving mail. I'm left with two difficulties. The first involves a purchased cert. The cert is in the name mail.wrightbg.com, which is our external DNS name for the server. There is also a CNAME record set up in our internal DNS pointing mail to the server's real name, corp-exchange07. I have the Macs configured to go to mail.wrightbg.com and they find the server OK, but they report a certificate error, stating that the cert is mail.wrightbg.com, but the server is corp-exchange07.wrightbg.com. The second problem that they're encountering is that when they try to send an email after being idle for a bit, the server is prompting them for a password. They can log in OK, but the extra typing is a bit much to ask. Ideas? Thanks in advance, Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Size Error
Is there _anything_ else on the receiving side that might be filtering prior to delivery to Exchange? How about on the sender's side? On 1/23/08 13:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To:
RE: Tales of woe featuring Exchange 2007, Macs and Certs
You may be able to get a modified cert with a SAN (Subject Alternative Name) pointing to corp-exchange07.wrightbg.com so that either name would work w/o warning. From: Steve Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:20 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Tales of woe featuring Exchange 2007, Macs and Certs I've just moved 10 Mac users from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2007. They are using Apple's Mail to connect to email. After a morning of fiddling and reconfiguring client programs, I have them successfully moving mail. I'm left with two difficulties. The first involves a purchased cert. The cert is in the name mail.wrightbg.com, which is our external DNS name for the server. There is also a CNAME record set up in our internal DNS pointing mail to the server's real name, corp-exchange07. I have the Macs configured to go to mail.wrightbg.com and they find the server OK, but they report a certificate error, stating that the cert is mail.wrightbg.com, but the server is corp-exchange07.wrightbg.com. The second problem that they're encountering is that when they try to send an email after being idle for a bit, the server is prompting them for a password. They can log in OK, but the extra typing is a bit much to ask. Ideas? Thanks in advance, Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
I put this in my original post, but of course everyone was so preoccupied with the penis jokes that they didn't bother to read it. This message is larger than the current system limit or the recipient's mailbox is full. Create a shorter message body or remove attachments and try sending it again. server.unnamed_utility.com #5.2.3 Roger -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Exact details of the NDR would be helpful here, I think. On Jan 23, 2008 1:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin
RE: Size Error
Wow, that is an interesting thought. That one definitely goes on the look for corroborating evidence list. Thanks, Roger -Original Message- From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Any chance the sender's mailbox was at/near the send limit, and there wasn't room in their mailbox to add it to the Sent Items, so it was being rejected by their own mail server? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Size Error
Where exactly is server.unnamed_utility.com, and do you know what MTA it's running? Is it an Exchange box, or Postfix/Cyrus, or something else? On Jan 23, 2008 3:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put this in my original post, but of course everyone was so preoccupied with the penis jokes that they didn't bother to read it. This message is larger than the current system limit or the recipient's mailbox is full. Create a shorter message body or remove attachments and try sending it again. server.unnamed_utility.com #5.2.3 Roger -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Exact details of the NDR would be helpful here, I think. On Jan 23, 2008 1:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-)
Re: Size Error
BTW - the reason I ask is that when I've seen this from an Exchange box, the message is more along the lines of: domain.com #5.2.3 smtp;450 5.2.3 Msg Size greater than allowed by Remote Host On Jan 23, 2008 3:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put this in my original post, but of course everyone was so preoccupied with the penis jokes that they didn't bother to read it. This message is larger than the current system limit or the recipient's mailbox is full. Create a shorter message body or remove attachments and try sending it again. server.unnamed_utility.com #5.2.3 Roger -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Exact details of the NDR would be helpful here, I think. On Jan 23, 2008 1:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe
My OWA 2007 Has been killed by SP1
Hi folks I installed SP1 for EK2K7 today and it has broken OWA Single Exchange (On my DC, the only 64 bit machine I have). When I login to OWA, from in or out of the domain, I get a white page with blue boxes with red X's in them. I cannot see anything out of the ordinary in the website properties. All permissions look OK. It has been working fine until SP1. Does anyone have any ideas how to fix it? Thanks Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Mailbox Manager - Exchange 2003
GoExchange.. DOH -Original Message- From: Jason Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Mailbox Manager - Exchange 2003 I have a client who needs to begin a regular purging of information from their Exchange Servers in order to comply with their new retention policies. Basically, they want to purge everything from all folders (system created and the many, many, user created folders) after xx number of days, with the exception of calendar, contacts, tasks and a few user defined folders (and their subfolders). Can mailbox manager policies do this? I've used them before for custom folders, and quite frankly it was spotty. My thought is to set a single policy for all users (this is a 25 mailbox organization) and set the proper settings for each system defined folder, add the custom folders and settings, then enable the all other folder setting. Should these settings flow properly? Also, I recognize that Exchange 2007 has vastly improved the abilities of this functionality and can certainly use this reason as a catalyst to upgrade, but I don't want to lie :). So if Exchange 2003 can do it, but Exchange 2007 can do it that much better, I need to be able to portray that. Any help is, as always, much appreciated. Jason Jason Tierney, MCSE Vice President, Consulting Services Corporate Network Services Count on Us 20010 Fisher Ave, Suite E Poolesville, MD 20837 direct: 240-425-4441 | main: 301.948.8077 | fax: 301.349.2518 http://www.cornetser.comhttp://www.cornetser.com/ Best Place to Work, Alliance for Workplace Excellence - 2006 2007 ...ask me how to better manage your IT costs with PROSuite ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Tales of woe featuring Exchange 2007, Macs and Certs
I'm not a Mac person - doesn't it have an option to save passwords? As to the other issue, either assign a second IP address and separate certificate or use a UCC Certificate that supports multiple common names (also known as SAN - Subject Alternative Names). An inexpensive source for those are http://certificatesforexchange.com (I am not affiliated.) Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Steve Hart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:20 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Tales of woe featuring Exchange 2007, Macs and Certs I've just moved 10 Mac users from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2007. They are using Apple's Mail to connect to email. After a morning of fiddling and reconfiguring client programs, I have them successfully moving mail. I'm left with two difficulties. The first involves a purchased cert. The cert is in the name mail.wrightbg.com, which is our external DNS name for the server. There is also a CNAME record set up in our internal DNS pointing mail to the server's real name, corp-exchange07. I have the Macs configured to go to mail.wrightbg.com and they find the server OK, but they report a certificate error, stating that the cert is mail.wrightbg.com, but the server is corp-exchange07.wrightbg.com. The second problem that they're encountering is that when they try to send an email after being idle for a bit, the server is prompting them for a password. They can log in OK, but the extra typing is a bit much to ask. Ideas? Thanks in advance, Steve ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
It is possible that there are other servers and or firewalls that the sender's mail needs to pass through. I have no way to know what is happening on the sender's side. My client asked me not to bother the sender. Apparently she was very frustrated about the whole thing. I wish I could help her, but I'm sure a company of that size has a help desk for this sort of thing. Roger -Original Message- From: Salvador Manzo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:29 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Is there _anything_ else on the receiving side that might be filtering prior to delivery to Exchange? How about on the sender's side? On 1/23/08 13:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+
RE: Size Error
I know it was 2 MB because one of the attempts did finally get through. Roger -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:17 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Just because she thinkgs she's sending you a 2MB attachment, doesnt mean she really is. EBKAC On Jan 23, 2008 4:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Way to keep it on topic, guys. Let me try this again. A user at a large utility tried to send a message with a 2MB attachment to my client and received a 5.2.3 error (basically it means the message exceeds available storage). My client is running Exchange 2003 and frequently receives messages several times larger than the message that failed. I asked the user at the large utility to send the message to me and she got the same error. I am running Exchange 2003 and my limits are set to allow large attachments. I then asked the user to send the message to my ISP account (RCN) which is a 5MB POP3 mailbox and again the user get the 5.2.3 error. That mailbox was almost empty, so the error was not valid. Finally, I was informed that the message was successfully delivered to my client's receptionist who the user CC'd on an earlier attempt (It was delivered to the CC but failed to the TO - WTF???). The receptionist works in the same office and uses the same exchange server as my client. My logs and my client's logs don't show any error when the user tried to send. The error message must have been logged by the user's server. I don't know if that is normal behavior or not as far as which server throws and records an error when the destination server runs out of space. Do any of you boys have any ideas as to what the cause of the (apparently) false errors might be? Roger -Original Message- From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Did Paul just call himself a lady??? -Original Message- From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Uh oh -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE:
RE: IPod Wifi Email
You should see the peoples faces light up when I take their IPods into the office and after scanning and finding numerous viri and trojans on them slap a SECRET sticker on it and hold it for our IA people to pick up and destroy. John H. Matteson, Jr. Systems Administrator/ITT Systems FOB Orgun-E Afghanistan DSN - 318 431 8000 VoSIP - (308) 431 - Iridium - 717.633.3823 A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes. Woodrow Wilson -Original Message- From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:42 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: IPod Wifi Email If you had a policy in place that did not allow 'non' work supplied items you could stop other people bringing in their own kit. What about the possibilty of data leaks if people bring in their own kit, or virus's, trojan, worms etc ending up on your network? From: Theochares, George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 January 2008 15:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: IPod Wifi Email A guy brought in his IPod (not an IPhone) and claims it recieves email via WiFi. We do not support Wifi in his area of the office nor should the Wifi on his laptop be used for this purpose. I have not done any research on this yet but he's requested SMTP, POP, and IMAP criteria. Has anyone encountered this yet and if so, comments/suggestions welcome? George Theochares Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation One Constitution Plaza Boston, MA 02129 Tel: (617) 241-3044 Fax: (617) 241-5115 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note : This e-mail contains information from the law firm of Campbell Campbell Edwards Conroy Professional Corporation that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney- client privilege or work-product doctrine. This e-mail is intended for the use only of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this e-mail or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by e-mail to the author or call 617-241-3000. ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.clearswift.com ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Size Error
WHERE?!?!?! John H. Matteson, Jr. Systems Administrator/ITT Systems FOB Orgun-E Afghanistan DSN - 318 431 8000 VoSIP - (308) 431 - Iridium - 717.633.3823 A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes. Woodrow Wilson -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Gentlemen! There are ladies present... -Original Message- From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Yeah, well you're a poopy-head. So there. Andy -Original Message- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Size Error Andy's nickname is 'Quick Draw McGraw'. Andy is a horrible marksman. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Quick_Draw_McGraw.jpg On Jan 23, 2008 3:03 PM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's the problem with that, Quicktime? From: Andy Shook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 2:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error That may be true but as Jeff Foxworthy says, it takes a long time to get to England in a row boat. Shook http://www.linkedin.com/in/andyshook From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It's not the size of the vessel, but the skill of the captain. Can be applied to boating and other matters of concern. From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error It ain't the size of yer pole that matters, it's how you wiggle yer worm. Can be applied to fishing and other matters of concern. From: John Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Keep telling the wife that, maybe someday she'll believe it as well ;-) John W. Cook System Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:37 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size doesn't matter... From: Tom Strader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:35 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Size Error Size Error... TVK asks himself that question every morning From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:08 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Size Error Does anyone have any thoughts about the size error problem I posted at 9:15 last night? All of the systems have plenty of space left. Roger CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
NLB CAS SSL Certs
I am trying to figure out the proper SSL cert to purchase. I have two CAS/HUB servers using NLB for redundancy and load balancing, and I wanted to make sure a single SAN cert will do the trick. Would the following names be all I need to include in the cert? Cas1.domain.com Cas2.domain.com Cas1.domain.local Cas2.domain.local Mail.domain.com (NLB address) After installing on the first server, I'll export and install on the second. Thanks, Matt ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
