OWA redirection

[Peter Johnson]

Hi Guys and girls

 

I'm busy setting up my OWA interface on my exchange server and the 3rd
party SSL certificate is working 100% with forms based authentication
etc. My only issue is redirecting the default website to the OWA so that
users can type https://webmail.x.com rather than
https://webmail.x.com/owa . The server is Server 2008 with Exchange
Server 2007 SP1 with the latest rollup applied.

 

I've tried a few suggestions from different websites and had no luck.
I've got no Exchange Server 2003 servers in the mix. Anyone got any info
for me?

 

Regards

Peter Johnson

 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: OWA redirection

[Sherry Abercrombie]

Check out Petri's site here:  http://www.petri.co.il/exchange.htm

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Peter Johnson
wrote:

>  Hi Guys and girls
>
>
>
> I’m busy setting up my OWA interface on my exchange server and the 3rdparty 
> SSL certificate is working 100% with forms based authentication etc.
> My only issue is redirecting the default website to the OWA so that users
> can type https://webmail.x.com rather than https://webmail.x.com/owa . The
> server is Server 2008 with Exchange Server 2007 SP1 with the latest rollup
> applied.
>
>
>
> I’ve tried a few suggestions from different websites and had no luck. I’ve
> got no Exchange Server 2003 servers in the mix. Anyone got any info for me?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
> Peter Johnson
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

PF replication, latency and archiving

[Kurt Buff]

All,

We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the
US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data
transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further
handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of
768/128.

To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office
to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL
connection.

The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK
office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs.

Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know
how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half.

Questions:
1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how
does SEA perform for you?

2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the
US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that
native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption
than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory?


Any thoughts on this welcome...

Kurt

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

confused with OMA

[Thomas Gonzalez]

I have successfully set up the FE / BE, but since I have the topology
running, my OMA users cannot sync up. i thought or was under the
assumption that when you tested : http://server_name/oma that it would
pull from the FE and authenticate and get your box from the BE. Is that
correct?

 

If not, is there a document that would explain or give details as to how
to setup the FE / BE to allow OMA to work?

 

 

TIA

 

Thomas Gonzalez

Technology Manager

Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas

210.349.2404 phone
210.403.1586 DID

210.349.2666 fax

www.girlscouts-swtx.org  

tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org  

 

 




This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Girl Scouts of 
Southwest Texas company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make 
sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept 
responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or 
attachments.
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: PF replication, latency and archiving

[Eric Hanna]

Kurt,

Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each 
respective location? 

If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you don't 
have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some bandwidth 
issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this manner, you 
would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US would be 
Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location ID 3. As SEA 
uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they are (depending 
on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to retrieve messages from 
the respective SEA server on or off the WAN.

Hopefully, this helps somewhat...

Sincerely,
 
Eric Hanna
Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist
Sunbelt Software
 
email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com
Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500
Web: 
Physical Address:
33 N Garden Ave
Suite 120
Clearwater, FL 33755
United States

-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving

All,

We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the
US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data
transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further
handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of
768/128.

To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office
to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL
connection.

The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK
office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs.

Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know
how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half.

Questions:
1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how
does SEA perform for you?

2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the
US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that
native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption
than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory?


Any thoughts on this welcome...

Kurt

~ 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: confused with OMA

[Dahl, Peter]

OMA does not  have the ability to sync, OMA is a simplified view of OWA for 
mobile browsers.  If you want to sync you will want to look at enabling 
ActiveSync.

However if OMA is what you are looking for this article walks through the 
configuration.
http://www.petri.co.il/configure_oma.htm


From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:11 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: confused with OMA

I have successfully set up the FE / BE, but since I have the topology running, 
my OMA users cannot sync up. i thought or was under the assumption that when 
you tested : http://server_name/oma that it would pull from the FE and 
authenticate and get your box from the BE. Is that correct?

If not, is there a document that would explain or give details as to how to 
setup the FE / BE to allow OMA to work?


TIA

Thomas Gonzalez
Technology Manager
Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas
210.349.2404 phone
210.403.1586 DID
210.349.2666 fax
www.girlscouts-swtx.org
tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org



This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Girl Scouts of 
Southwest Texas. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no 
viruses are present in this email, Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas cannot accept 
responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or 
attachments.




This communication is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are 
not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read or disclose to others, (ii) 
please notify the sender by reply mail, and (iii) please delete this 
communication from your system.  Failure to follow this process may be 
unlawful.  Thank you for your cooperation.

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: confused with OMA

[Knoch, James W]

Are you sure you're talking about the correct thing?  You mention OMA,
which is Outlook Mobile Access, a lightweight version of Outlook Web
Access optimized for WAP browsers and the like.  However, you gave me
pause when you mentioned "sync".  Are you sure that you're not trying to
get ActiveSync working?  If so, it doesn't require the /oma.

 

If you are really referring to OMA, in order for it to authenticate
properly, the mailbox user must have an e-mail address that is the same
as the Default Policy in your Recipient Policies.  If you want to do a
quick test to make sure OMA is working, you can go to
http://BackEndServerName/oma and it should prompt for authentication.
Also note, you cannot use Forms based authentication and SSL
authentication on the Backend server in a FE/BE scenario, only on the
Frontend.  Also, if you're using an ISA 2004 server that is doing the
forms-based authentication, it will enforce forms-based authentication
on all virtual directories for that one publishing rule.  You will then
need to look into additional virtual servers to provide all the services
you require.

 

Just remember that OMA is discontinued in Exchange 2007+, so if some
users become dependent on the service, you would no longer have it
available when you upgrade.  I really recommend against implementing OMA
at this point, as ActiveSync devices are plentiful and more useful.

 

Thanks,
James

 

From: Thomas Gonzalez [mailto:tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org] 
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:11 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: confused with OMA

 

I have successfully set up the FE / BE, but since I have the topology
running, my OMA users cannot sync up. i thought or was under the
assumption that when you tested : http://server_name/oma that it would
pull from the FE and authenticate and get your box from the BE. Is that
correct?

 

If not, is there a document that would explain or give details as to how
to setup the FE / BE to allow OMA to work?

 

 

TIA

 

Thomas Gonzalez

Technology Manager

Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas

210.349.2404 phone
210.403.1586 DID

210.349.2666 fax

www.girlscouts-swtx.org  

tgonza...@girlscouts-swtx.org

 

 

This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely
for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you
should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not
represent those of the Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas. Warning: Although
precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this
email, Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas cannot accept responsibility for
any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments.

 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: PF replication, latency and archiving

[Kurt Buff]

We have an Exchange 2003 server at each location.

No way we're going to spend more money on more infrastructure, though.
One instance of SEA is all we're going to get.

However, we are message journaling the foreign offices back to the US
office. I'm hoping that helps significantly.

Kurt

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:17, Eric Hanna  wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each 
> respective location?
>
> If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you 
> don't have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some 
> bandwidth issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this 
> manner, you would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US 
> would be Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location 
> ID 3. As SEA uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they 
> are (depending on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to 
> retrieve messages from the respective SEA server on or off the WAN.
>
> Hopefully, this helps somewhat...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric Hanna
> Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist
> Sunbelt Software
>
> email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com
> Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500
> Web: 
> Physical Address:
> 33 N Garden Ave
> Suite 120
> Clearwater, FL 33755
> United States
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving
>
> All,
>
> We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the
> US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data
> transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further
> handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of
> 768/128.
>
> To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office
> to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL
> connection.
>
> The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK
> office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs.
>
> Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know
> how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half.
>
> Questions:
> 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how
> does SEA perform for you?
>
> 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the
> US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that
> native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption
> than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory?
>
>
> Any thoughts on this welcome...
>
> Kurt
>
> ~ 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: PF replication, latency and archiving

[Kurt Buff]

Hit send too soon...

Also, we've been manually archiving the message journaling mailbox for
years, and saving the daily PST files to disk and tape.

Kurt

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:17, Eric Hanna  wrote:
> Kurt,
>
> Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each 
> respective location?
>
> If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you 
> don't have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some 
> bandwidth issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this 
> manner, you would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US 
> would be Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location 
> ID 3. As SEA uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they 
> are (depending on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to 
> retrieve messages from the respective SEA server on or off the WAN.
>
> Hopefully, this helps somewhat...
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric Hanna
> Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist
> Sunbelt Software
>
> email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com
> Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500
> Web: 
> Physical Address:
> 33 N Garden Ave
> Suite 120
> Clearwater, FL 33755
> United States
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving
>
> All,
>
> We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the
> US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data
> transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further
> handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of
> 768/128.
>
> To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office
> to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL
> connection.
>
> The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK
> office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs.
>
> Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know
> how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half.
>
> Questions:
> 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how
> does SEA perform for you?
>
> 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the
> US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that
> native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption
> than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory?
>
>
> Any thoughts on this welcome...
>
> Kurt
>
> ~ 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: PF replication, latency and archiving

[Sobey, Richard A]

PF replication will always take a lesser precedent to normal mail traffic, and 
you can configure it to happen out of hours, if any such things exists in your 
company.

You might also have the luxury - depending on costs and how much time you have 
- of setting up an Exchange PF store on a new server locally, replicating your 
PFs to it, then shipping it off somewhere. 

Cheers :)


From: bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
[bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff 
[kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: 28 May 2009 19:48
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving

All,

We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the
US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data
transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further
handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of
768/128.

To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office
to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL
connection.

The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK
office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs.

Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know
how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half.

Questions:
1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how
does SEA perform for you?

2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the
US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that
native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption
than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory?


Any thoughts on this welcome...

Kurt

~ 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: PF replication, latency and archiving

[Kurt Buff]

That will probably prove useful. I'll make note of that during the
conversations we have.

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 13:29, Sobey, Richard A  wrote:
> PF replication will always take a lesser precedent to normal mail traffic, 
> and you can configure it to happen out of hours, if any such things exists in 
> your company.
>
> You might also have the luxury - depending on costs and how much time you 
> have - of setting up an Exchange PF store on a new server locally, 
> replicating your PFs to it, then shipping it off somewhere.
>
> Cheers :)
>
> 
> From: bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
> [bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff 
> [kurt.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28 May 2009 19:48
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving
>
> All,
>
> We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the
> US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data
> transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further
> handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of
> 768/128.
>
> To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office
> to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL
> connection.
>
> The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK
> office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs.
>
> Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know
> how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half.
>
> Questions:
> 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how
> does SEA perform for you?
>
> 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the
> US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that
> native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption
> than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory?
>
>
> Any thoughts on this welcome...
>
> Kurt
>
> ~ 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: Deleting Mailbox Database

[Michael B. Smith]

Well, there are other alternatives (think: removing the checkpoint file).

But yes - that is a valid reason to run eseutil. I don't think the average 
admin would do that, however, without calling PSS/CSS.

I could be wrong tho...


From: Sobey, Richard A [r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:07 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database

Or a server crash leaves you with missing transaction logs and the only way to 
get databsaes mounted again, with the knowledge you've lost at least some data, 
is to use eseutil.

(Yes, it happened to me).


From: bounce-8548547-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
[bounce-8548547-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Michael B. 
Smith [mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: 27 May 2009 23:08
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database

Happy to read you saying that.

In Exchange 2007 and above - there is NO reason to ever run eseutil (much less 
isinteg) unless directed to do so by PSS/CSS.

None.


From: Jeremy Phillips [jere...@cohesivelogic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:30 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database

Eseutil is evil at best. Before returning to consulting recently I used to run 
the operations team for an Exchange focused Managed Service Provider and using 
eseutil when there was any other option at all was a firing offense. I never 
actually had to fire anyone after it was explained to them exactly what eseutil 
and isinteg do, and how spectacularly things could break…

Thanks,

Jeremy Phillips
M: 540-322-7980 | BB PIN: 318A6889

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:26 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Deleting Mailbox Database

Good, glad to see you say that Jeremy eseutil is bad.  I think that your train 
of thought there is a good one, you've moved the mailboxes to another database, 
so why keep a empty, and possibly corrupted database, get rid of it.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Jeremy Phillips 
mailto:jere...@cohesivelogic.com>> wrote:

Yeah, but I go out of my way to avoid using either of those tools so I didn’t 
elaborate. Bad Things can happen when they’re used. If all the mailboxes are 
off the database then what use is keeping it around?



Thanks,



Jeremy Phillips

M: 540-322-7980 | BB PIN: 318A6889



From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:12 AM

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database



Actually it’s eseutil  /p and then an isinteg  -fix (at least in 2003)





John W. Cook

Systems 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, A+, N+, VSP



From: Jeremy Phillips 
[mailto:jere...@cohesivelogic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:00 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database



Time for a new consultant. Eseutil /d won’t do anything with corruption.



Thanks,



Jeremy Phillips

M: 540-322-7980 | BB PIN: 318A6889



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database



My consultant says no::



“Not quite ….



First, if you don’t need it, just delete it … (make sure you have a backup)

If you want to keep it, just dismount and defrag it (I believe it’s eseutil /d)”





___

Stefan Jafs



From: Matteson, John H Jr USA Mr USA 25th SigBN (ITT) 
[mailto:john.matte...@afghan.swa.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:07 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database



That would be a correct assumption.



John H. Matteson, Jr.

Systems Administrator/ITT Systems

Forward Operating Base Orgun-E

Afghanistan

DSN - 318 431 8001

VoSIP - (308) 431 - 

Iridium SatPhone - 717.633.3823

Roshain Mobile - 079 - 736 - 3832



"So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people 
to work." -- Peter Drucker



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 7:19 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database



I think I just found the answer, dismount, delete the file, mount and it will 
be recreated, correct?



___

Stefan Jafs



From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 10:34 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Deleting Mailbox Database



Exchange 2007, I had some potential corruption issues in the above database, I 
have since created a new Mailbox Data Three and moved all users to this Store.

Re: Deleting Mailbox Database

[Kurt Buff]

Never overestimate the intelligence of the average admin...

I've found that the average intelligence of the admins on this list is
quite a bit higher than the admins I meet in the wild, however.

I still remember, not fondly, the admin who, on Ex5.5, when the drive
filled, simply shut down the services, copied off the databases to
another machine, deleted them, and fired up the server, so that they
could get up and running again.

Yeesh...

Kurt

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 16:28, Michael B. Smith
 wrote:
> Well, there are other alternatives (think: removing the checkpoint file).
>
> But yes - that is a valid reason to run eseutil. I don't think the average
> admin would do that, however, without calling PSS/CSS.
>
> I could be wrong tho...
>
> 
> From: Sobey, Richard A [r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:07 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
> Or a server crash leaves you with missing transaction logs and the only way
> to get databsaes mounted again, with the knowledge you've lost at least some
> data, is to use eseutil.
>
> (Yes, it happened to me).
>
> 
> From: bounce-8548547-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> [bounce-8548547-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Michael B.
> Smith [mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
> Sent: 27 May 2009 23:08
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
> Happy to read you saying that.
>
> In Exchange 2007 and above - there is NO reason to ever run eseutil (much
> less isinteg) unless directed to do so by PSS/CSS.
>
> None.
>
> 
> From: Jeremy Phillips [jere...@cohesivelogic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:30 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
> Eseutil is evil at best. Before returning to consulting recently I used to
> run the operations team for an Exchange focused Managed Service Provider and
> using eseutil when there was any other option at all was a firing offense. I
> never actually had to fire anyone after it was explained to them exactly
> what eseutil and isinteg do, and how spectacularly things could break…
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jeremy Phillips
>
> M: 540-322-7980 | BB PIN: 318A6889
>
>
>
> From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:26 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
>
>
> Good, glad to see you say that Jeremy eseutil is bad.  I think that your
> train of thought there is a good one, you've moved the mailboxes to another
> database, so why keep a empty, and possibly corrupted database, get rid of
> it.
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Jeremy Phillips
>  wrote:
>
> Yeah, but I go out of my way to avoid using either of those tools so I
> didn’t elaborate. Bad Things can happen when they’re used. If all the
> mailboxes are off the database then what use is keeping it around?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jeremy Phillips
>
> M: 540-322-7980 | BB PIN: 318A6889
>
>
>
> From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:12 AM
>
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
>
>
> Actually it’s eseutil  /p and then an isinteg  -fix (at least in 2003)
>
>
>
>
>
> John W. Cook
>
> Systems 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, A+, N+, VSP
>
>
>
> From: Jeremy Phillips [mailto:jere...@cohesivelogic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:00 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
>
>
> Time for a new consultant. Eseutil /d won’t do anything with corruption.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Jeremy Phillips
>
> M: 540-322-7980 | BB PIN: 318A6889
>
>
>
> From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:51 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
>
>
> My consultant says no::
>
>
>
> “Not quite ….
>
>
>
> First, if you don’t need it, just delete it … (make sure you have a backup)
>
> If you want to keep it, just dismount and defrag it (I believe it’s eseutil
> /d)”
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
> Stefan Jafs
>
>
>
> From: Matteson, John H Jr USA Mr USA 25th SigBN (ITT)
> [mailto:john.matte...@afghan.swa.army.mil]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:07 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Deleting Mailbox Database
>
>
>
> That would be a correct assumption.
>
>
>
> John H. Matteson, Jr.
>
> Systems Administrator/ITT Systems
>
> Forward Operating Base Orgun-E
>
> Afghanistan
>
> DSN - 318 431 8001
>
> VoSIP - (308) 431 - 
>
> Iridium SatPhone - 717.633.3823
>
> Roshain Mobile - 079 - 736 - 3832
>
>
>
> "So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for
> people to work." -- Peter Drucker
>
>
>
> From: