RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Can I chip in with a non American vehicle? Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town and 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual. -Original Message- From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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~ ** 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
I still get 30mph, and RPM around 4500. 30mph? Pretty good for a KIA. I thought you said it would get up to 70... snickers -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) I've made several trips in my 2002 Kia between my home near Seattle and destinations in Eastern WA (minimum trip time, 4 hours, maximum 7 hrs) at sustained speeds over 70mph, usually pushing 80. I still get 30mph, and RPM around 4500. I love the little beast, even if acceleration is dismal, and the roofer left a huge dent in the front driver-side quarter panel.. Kurt On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:47, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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~
MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007
Hi all Since I have updated our send connectors on Exchange 2007 to use our HT servers to route mail to our smart host, it seems to be sending through too many messages per connection. The smart host is thus delaying delivery of those message by up to 15 minutes as it thinks it's bulk mail (for info, it rejects mail after 10 messages in any single connection). On Exchange 2003, there was a nice setting called Maximum messages per connection on the SMTP virtual server tab which now, unfortunately, seems to be absent. Does anyone know a) How many messages per connection Exchange 2007 can submit, and if that value can be changed; b) If not, a creative solution of how to get around this, bar accepting the 15 minute delay, or making unwanted changes elsewhere? Cheers Richard ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Exchange 2003 server sizing
We have Exchange 2003 in place. Comprising of 4 node cluster with 3 active servers. These servers are connected to a Sun SAN for back end storage. We have around 4000 users. Each server has 3 or 4 stores. We also run OWA internally and externally What im after is a whitepaper/guide that defines how many users we should have per server, how many OWA connections etc that we should have before we consider the servers over worked. Is there such a guide? Im aiming to try and resolve/reduce the number of calls we get saying email is running slow or Ive the popup box saying trying to retrieve data from server xxx message Any pointers to a guide would be good. Cheers John --- John Ellis Tel (0151) 666 3208 Senior IT OfficerFax (0151) 666 3049 Wirral IT Services johnel...@wirral.gov.uk --- ** 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Mini cooper _DIESEL_?? I wish the US would get it's act together for mid-size and small diesel. -sc -Original Message- From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
What's the specs on a TD5 power plant? -sc -Original Message- From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:02 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Can I chip in with a non American vehicle? Land Rover 110 Td5 full time 4x4 139k miles and 28mpg around town and 32/33mpg on a run. 2500cc 5 Cylinder. Manual. -Original Message- From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 29 June 2009 09:41 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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~ ** 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~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Global Update Personal Calendars?
We're a school. For the last 9 years, we have had a shared school calendar in public folders showing all the events and at the beginning of every school year, we have a csv file of all school events for employees to import into their Outlook calendar - if they want. Now I'm being asked if there's a way to make meeting changes on everyone's calendar that has that meeting on their calendar. Short of a person designated to invite all employees to every meeting - I don't know of a way to do what they would like. Thinking outside of the box - is this something that SharePoint would be good for or is there an entirely different/better way to do what they would like? Not all employees import the calendar. Not all of the events are applicable to all employees. Those that do import, realize they have a lot to cleanup/delete afterwards. The Epstein School is a proud beneficiary of the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Global Update Personal Calendars?
Add to Exchange is a third party tool we use here to sync contacts to individual mailboxes. The Enterprise version will let you use Active Directory groups to decide which calendars get synchronized to which private mailboxes. (will work for contacts, calendars and tasks I believe) On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Shields, Anthony ashie...@epsteinatlanta.org wrote: We're a school. For the last 9 years, we have had a shared school calendar in public folders showing all the events and at the beginning of every school year, we have a csv file of all school events for employees to import into their Outlook calendar - if they want. Now I'm being asked if there's a way to make meeting changes on everyone's calendar that has that meeting on their calendar. Short of a person designated to invite all employees to every meeting - I don't know of a way to do what they would like. Thinking outside of the box - is this something that SharePoint would be good for or is there an entirely different/better way to do what they would like? Not all employees import the calendar. Not all of the events are applicable to all employees. Those that do import, realize they have a lot to cleanup/delete afterwards. The Epstein School is a proud beneficiary of the Jewish Federation of Greater Atlanta. ~ 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: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes
Nope. I was hoping to hear that others resolved this because I will start moving mailbox next week. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes Did you get this resolved? From: Senter, John [john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:24 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes We are about ready to start mass moving our users from Exchange 2003 to the 2007 servers. I have moved several test users and some of them appear in 2007 as linked mailbox. Looking at this link: http://telnetport25.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/linked-mailbox-conversion-after-migration-in-exchange-2007/ I understand why they are being set that way and the information cleaning up the SID's and resetting the AD attribute works great. My issue is it will be very time consuming to go back and do this for every account that comes over as linked. I am expecting that number to be around 500 accounts since that would be the people still around when they did 5.5 to 2000 migration years back using ADC. That is where I think the SID came from that has the associated external account permission. So here is the question: how did everyone else deal with this on a mass level? Is there a script or utility that will go through the existing 2003 mailboxes and remove any SID not associated to a real account? Thanks
Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
LOL! OK - I mistyped. It's 30mpg at over 70mph. On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 05:30, Maglinger, Paulpmaglin...@scvl.com wrote: I still get 30mph, and RPM around 4500. 30mph? Pretty good for a KIA. I thought you said it would get up to 70... snickers -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) I've made several trips in my 2002 Kia between my home near Seattle and destinations in Eastern WA (minimum trip time, 4 hours, maximum 7 hrs) at sustained speeds over 70mph, usually pushing 80. I still get 30mph, and RPM around 4500. I love the little beast, even if acceleration is dismal, and the roofer left a huge dent in the front driver-side quarter panel.. Kurt On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:47, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007
Take a look at set-transportserver From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:26 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: MaxMessagesPerConnection - Exchange 2007 Hi all Since I have updated our send connectors on Exchange 2007 to use our HT servers to route mail to our smart host, it seems to be sending through too many messages per connection. The smart host is thus delaying delivery of those message by up to 15 minutes as it thinks it's bulk mail (for info, it rejects mail after 10 messages in any single connection). On Exchange 2003, there was a nice setting called Maximum messages per connection on the SMTP virtual server tab which now, unfortunately, seems to be absent. Does anyone know a) How many messages per connection Exchange 2007 can submit, and if that value can be changed; b) If not, a creative solution of how to get around this, bar accepting the 15 minute delay, or making unwanted changes elsewhere? Cheers Richard
Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes
I wonder if the nomas tool would help in this situation... http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/03/22/422799.aspx From: Senter, John [mailto:john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes Nope. I was hoping to hear that others resolved this because I will start moving mailbox next week. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes Did you get this resolved? From: Senter, John [john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:24 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes We are about ready to start mass moving our users from Exchange 2003 to the 2007 servers. I have moved several test users and some of them appear in 2007 as linked mailbox. Looking at this link: http://telnetport25.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/linked-mailbox-conversion-after-migration-in-exchange-2007/ I understand why they are being set that way and the information cleaning up the SID's and resetting the AD attribute works great. My issue is it will be very time consuming to go back and do this for every account that comes over as linked. I am expecting that number to be around 500 accounts since that would be the people still around when they did 5.5 to 2000 migration years back using ADC. That is where I think the SID came from that has the associated external account permission. So here is the question: how did everyone else deal with this on a mass level? Is there a script or utility that will go through the existing 2003 mailboxes and remove any SID not associated to a real account? Thanks 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.
Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel prices are in your area. Reg. Unleaded = $2.89 Diesel = $3.29 Anchorage, Alaska - Sean On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Don't know about diesel, but gas is all over the map - I buy at Arco, because they have consistently lower prices, but even they go anywhere from $2.69 to $2.89. Others range higher. Kenmore, Redmond, Bothell, Kirkland, Auburn and Enumclaw, WA Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 12:35, Sean Martinseanmarti...@gmail.com wrote: Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel prices are in your area. Reg. Unleaded = $2.89 Diesel = $3.29 Anchorage, Alaska - Sean On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: Exchange 2007 Persian language support
Control Panel Regional Options to install the language packs you require. You'll need to install on the DC/GCs and Exchange servers. That'll get Outlook clients working, OWA is different. Check this link for more info: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123979.aspx -alex On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Connolly, Peter pjc...@buffalo.edu wrote: All, Exchange 2007 includes language support (client) for Persian (Farsi). How do I enable/install a language pack? And are there any pitfalls for doing this? Thanks! Peter ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes
Reading the documentation it only updates the master GUID if the account is disabled. I have run the app in check mode and it did not report any fixes for enabled users, only disabled. A fix would be to remove any permissions that do not resolve to valid accounts. From: Dahl, Peter [mailto:peter.d...@yum.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes I wonder if the nomas tool would help in this situation... http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/03/22/422799.aspx From: Senter, John [mailto:john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes Nope. I was hoping to hear that others resolved this because I will start moving mailbox next week. From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 4:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes Did you get this resolved? From: Senter, John [john.sen...@etrade.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:24 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Moving users to Exch 2007 and Linked mailboxes We are about ready to start mass moving our users from Exchange 2003 to the 2007 servers. I have moved several test users and some of them appear in 2007 as linked mailbox. Looking at this link: http://telnetport25.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/linked-mailbox-conversion-after-migration-in-exchange-2007/ I understand why they are being set that way and the information cleaning up the SID's and resetting the AD attribute works great. My issue is it will be very time consuming to go back and do this for every account that comes over as linked. I am expecting that number to be around 500 accounts since that would be the people still around when they did 5.5 to 2000 migration years back using ADC. That is where I think the SID came from that has the associated external account permission. So here is the question: how did everyone else deal with this on a mass level? Is there a script or utility that will go through the existing 2003 mailboxes and remove any SID not associated to a real account? Thanks DISCLAIMER: 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.
Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Reg. 2.63 at Costco Not sure about diesel right now Northwest Indiana near Chicago From: Sean Martin seanmarti...@gmail.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:35:56 PM Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel prices are in your area. Reg. Unleaded = $2.89 Diesel = $3.29 Anchorage, Alaska - Sean On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
$2.59 Regular $2.67 Diesel Southern Indiana From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel prices are in your area. Reg. Unleaded = $2.89 Diesel = $3.29 Anchorage, Alaska - Sean On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
In the west burbs of Chicago Diesel is a bit cheaper than regular gas the last time I looked. From: Don Kuhlman [mailto:drkuhl...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Reg. 2.63 at Costco Not sure about diesel right now Northwest Indiana near Chicago From: Sean Martin seanmarti...@gmail.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:35:56 PM Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel prices are in your area. Reg. Unleaded = $2.89 Diesel = $3.29 Anchorage, Alaska - Sean On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
$3.059 Regular $2.859 Diesel East Bay (walnut Creek) California From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) $2.59 Regular $2.67 Diesel Southern Indiana From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel prices are in your area. Reg. Unleaded = $2.89 Diesel = $3.29 Anchorage, Alaska - Sean On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote: Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive. A diesel would be nice, fer sher. Kurt On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk wrote: Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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~ 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 Names in the News 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.
RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
;)
From: David L Herrick [mailto:davidherr...@nincal.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:44 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
$3.059 Regular
$2.859 Diesel
East Bay (walnut Creek) California
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:53 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
$2.59 Regular
$2.67 Diesel
Southern Indiana
From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what
gas/diesel prices are in your area.
Reg. Unleaded = $2.89
Diesel = $3.29
Anchorage, Alaska
- Sean
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo
capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive.
A diesel would be nice, fer sher.
Kurt
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk
wrote:
Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel
(and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
/loves fuel bill.
-Original Message-
From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
[mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of
Ben Scott
Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com
wrote:
Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear
yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've
never seen savings at 55.
Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement.
I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced
the confusion.
MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I
know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs
changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between
21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when
it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's
going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up
to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH
but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to
redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on
the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's
considerably beefier, or so I've read.
It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher
speeds. I wouldn't have expected that.
-- Ben
~ 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~
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 Names in the News. 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.
FONT color=whitesmoke size=1{*}/font/FONT
Exchange 2007 and outlook Anyware
Hello Folks: I have setup Outlookanyware in my Exchange 2007 server installed RPC over HTTP and enabled in console the issue is i am not able to connect to the server i keep getting a error that say's the exchange server is unavailable. i tried to config while in the office but it setup with the internal email server name instead of the FQDN that i created for Owa any ideas Have a wonderful day Victor Rodriguez This e-Mail 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 e-Mail in error please notify the sender via returned e-Mail. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-Mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Although IDF operates anti-virus programs, it does not accept responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed. ** Think before you print this message. **
OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray
RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Is the slowness in opeing Outlook for the first time, or opening immediately after login? IOW - If you log in and wait for any group policy application, startup scritpts, etc to complete, is it still slow to open the first time, or is in only if you open it immediately after logging in? From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray ** 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. **
RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
It's usually immediately after logging in, but, I've tested in the afternoon, by logging out, and then logging in and immediately opening the client. It moves fast in the afternoon. Tomorrow morning, I'll log into my workstation and then wait about 10 minutes before opening the client. Murray From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:28 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING Is the slowness in opeing Outlook for the first time, or opening immediately after login? IOW - If you log in and wait for any group policy application, startup scritpts, etc to complete, is it still slow to open the first time, or is in only if you open it immediately after logging in? From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray ** 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. **
Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
There is something very wrong with the coloring of that map.
Something very very wrong...
--
ME2
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Salvador Manzoma...@usc.edu wrote:
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
;)
From: David L Herrick [mailto:davidherr...@nincal.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 1:44 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
$3.059 Regular
$2.859 Diesel
East Bay (walnut Creek) California
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:53 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
$2.59 Regular
$2.67 Diesel
Southern Indiana
From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Since we're on the subject of fuel efficiency, I was curious what gas/diesel
prices are in your area.
Reg. Unleaded = $2.89
Diesel = $3.29
Anchorage, Alaska
- Sean
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Dang - I considered a Mini Cooper when buying my Kia, but the cargo
capacity wasn't there and it was more expensive.
A diesel would be nice, fer sher.
Kurt
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:40, Sobey, Richard Ar.so...@imperial.ac.uk
wrote:
Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and
~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly).
/loves fuel bill.
-Original Message-
From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
[mailto:bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Scott
Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear
yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-)
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola
Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've
never seen savings at 55.
Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement.
I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced
the confusion.
MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I
know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively.
I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs
changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between
21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when
it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily.
80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's
going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up
to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the
engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH
but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to
redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on
the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's
considerably beefier, or so I've read.
It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher
speeds. I wouldn't have expected that.
-- Ben
~ 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 ~
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 Names
in the News. 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.
FONT color=whitesmoke size=1{*}/font/FONT
Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side performance issue. -- ME2 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freemanmfree...@alanet.org wrote: I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray
Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: http://gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx There is something very wrong with the coloring of that map. Something very very wrong... I imagine it looks fine if you live in Oklahoma. ;-) I assume the sharp boundaries along state lines are the result of taxes and other state fees impacting gas prices. -- Ben
Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Indeed... it takes Outlook much longer to reNder capital letters. use them spAringly. From: Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side performance issue. -- ME2 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman wrote: I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray
Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
:-) Seeing this is an Outlook performance issue that has only recently occurred, I have to ask: Is the Windows Search service running? I've seen indexing go awry plenty of times, hosing performance to a crawl especially in Outlook, printing, and a few other odd-ball places... -- ME2 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 6:17 PM, will...@lefkovics.netwill...@lefkovics.net wrote: Indeed... it takes Outlook much longer to reNder capital letters. use them spAringly. From: Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING Typing email subjects in all caps isnt going to help that client-side performance issue. -- ME2 On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Murray Freeman wrote: I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray
RE: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING
Are you running Vista 64 bit? Is this a Dell PC? Bob Fronk P Please print only as needed. From: Murray Freeman [mailto:mfree...@alanet.org] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: OUTLOOK 2003 VERY SLOW OPENING I've done some research before posting this issue, and can't find any good suggestions, so I'm going to the Source. We have Exchange Server 2K3 running on a Windows Server 2K3 and use the Outlook 2K3 Client. Recently we are having significant slowness upon opening the client first thing in the morning after logging into the network. Later in the day, if opening the client after closing the client, the client loads very fast, within a few seconds. We'd surely like to determine the cause of the slowness or at least a fix. Since we have staggered start times here, it's not like everyone is opening the client at the very same time. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Murray
RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?)
Shessh - paid $AU 1.12 ltr this morning,(cheapest day of the week for petrol in Brisbane) there's about 3.8 ltr to the US Gal which is about $AU 4.59 US Gal. Taking the current exchange rate $US 1 = $AU 1.23 into consideration means I paid the equivalent of about $US 5.64 a gal. For good measure the state government is introducing a new 8c ltr state tax tomorrow !!! Diesel is approx 3 - 5c a litre dearer than unleaded !! Local Ford Fairmont Ghia 6 cyl 4 ltr sedan gets about 11.5L/100k or 2.5Gal/62 miles (26.2 mpg) around town My math is not real great but I think you get the idea ! Brian -Original Message- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2009 1:50 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Mini cooper _DIESEL_?? I wish the US would get it's act together for mid-size and small diesel. -sc -Original Message- From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:41 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) Makes me so proud of my ~60MPG @ 70MPH in my new Mini Cooper Diesel (and ~40MPG @ 105MPH, but I never did that, honestly). /loves fuel bill. -Original Message- From: bounce-8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce- 8579465-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: 26 June 2009 16:47 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: OT: American automotive (was: Is Exchange Doomed?) On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Ben Scottmailvor...@gmail.com wrote: Amazingly enough, doing 80 MPH in 5th gear yields lower MPG than doing 65 MPH in 5th gear. :-) On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Micheal Espinola Jrmichealespin...@gmail.com wrote: I believe it. I've def. had cars that had lower MPG at 75+. I've never seen savings at 55. Gah, I'm an idiot. I reversed the intended sense in my statement. I was trying to be sarcastic with the Amazingly, and so reinforced the confusion. MPG is better at 65 MPH than 80 MPH. How much, I'm not sure, but I know I can use less gas if I drive less aggressively. I do tend to drive aggressively. I also haven't had the plugs changed in too long. And I'm an AC junky. So I typically get between 21 and 25 MPG in my 9-year-old Forrester. On all-highway trips when it was new, 28 to 30 MPG, easily. 80 MPH is pushing the engine a bit, I think. Not oh my God it's going to explode, but it's starting to whine a little. I got it up to just over 90 MPH once, then concern for both road safety and the engine won over and I backed off. The speedometer goes up to 120 MPH but I think that's being optimistic. 90 was already getting close to redline, and the engine sounded like a blender on puree. This is on the 4-cylinder base engine. They have an H6 on some models that's considerably beefier, or so I've read. It's interesting to hear that some cars get lower MPG at higher speeds. I wouldn't have expected that. -- Ben ~ 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~ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the BCEC Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic Education however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from computer viruses or other defects. Except for responsibilities implied by law that cannot be excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its employees and agents will not be responsible for any loss, damage or consequence arising from this e-mail.
