RE: SSL recomendations

2010-08-23 Thread Peter Johnson
Hi Steve

I can certainly second the endorsement of Digicert. Not the cheapest but they 
are endorsed by MS as a UC cert vendor and I've always found there support to 
be top notch!

Regards
[cid:image001.jpg@01CB429D.AE70AE30]

Peter Johnson
I.T Architect
United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542
South Africa: +27 11 252 1100
Swaziland: +268 442 7000
Fax:+27 11 974 7130
Mobile: +2783 306 0019
peter.john...@peterstow.com
www.peterstow.comhttp://www.peterstow.com


This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be 
confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, 
you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information 
contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this 
email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the 
sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of 
information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. 
Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of 
Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company.

Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information 
contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or 
inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any 
decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be 
made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, 
business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of 
the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any 
direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss 
of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or 
otherwise.

The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or 
incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other 
marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower.
No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower 
and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to create and send 
this e-mail.
 [cid:image002.jpg@01CB429D.AE70AE30]
From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com]
Sent: 20 August 2010 19:53
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: SSL recomendations

Lots of questions today!

I'm getting a cert for the new 2007 server. We currently have 2 servers using 
different domain names that we will be consolidating into 1. We will be 
consolidating domain names as well, but sometimes old habits (and shortcuts) 
die hard. Our real world server name convention is mail.domain.com

I'm thinking that I need to specify five FQDNs in the cert request: 
mail.domain1.com, autodiscover.domain1.com, mail.domain2.com, 
autodiscover.domain2.com, realservername.domain1.com .  Is that correct?

Secondly, I've been asked to get the cert from Godaddy.  Does anyone know 
offhand if their StandardSSL for Multiple Domains is the right cert to get?

Thanks in advance!

Steve


inline: image001.jpginline: image002.jpg

RE: OAB and GAL Entries

2010-08-23 Thread Chris Pohlschneider
So if I understand this correctly, I would need to create an alias in the 
Exchange 2003 Active Directory where my user account is listed and add the X500 
legacy DN address. Then I would need to add the X500 address to my Exchange 
2010 linked mailbox?


From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 5:20 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OAB and GAL Entries

The answer is to add the X500 address to the new user account.

The data you need is in the bounced email.

I struggled a lot with the proper formatting of the address, but this format is 
working for a sample user:
o=wright+20business+20graphics_ou=wbgkent_cn=recipients_cn=bwilli...@wrightbg.commailto:o=wright+20business+20graphics_ou=wbgkent_cn=recipients_cn=bwilli...@wrightbg.com
The +20 signifies a space. Note the underscores.

Note that AFAIK these bounces only apply to internal users. Outlook caches SMTP 
addresses for external users, so outside people send email in to your users 
just fine. Since the problem only affects internal users, another solution is 
to manually delete the address entries in their Outlook, if you only had a few 
senders with a few problems.

Another ugly solution is to delete or rename the Outlook .nk2 file, but then 
the user will lose all Outlook cached addresses, which usually isn't acceptable.





Steve Hart
Network Administrator
503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax

From: Chris Pohlschneider [mailto:chris.pohlschnei...@hollowayusa.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 2:00 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OAB and GAL Entries

Steve,

I do get bounce backs involving IMCEAx kinds of address since I have moved my 
mailbox from my Exchange 2003 Org down to the Exchange 2010 resource forest. If 
I reply to an e-mail that was sent before I moved my mailbox, I get these 
bounce backs since the sender is in my original Exchange 2003 Org. Then on the 
flipside, a user in the Exchange 2003 Org tries to send me an e-mail from the 
auto-complete entry, it fails and says that it cannot be delivered because 
their auto-complete entry is pointing to my X500 address. I cannot figure out 
the best way to fix this.


From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 12:21 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OAB and GAL Entries

Auto-complete is a function of Outlook, independent of anything done in OAB or 
GAL.

Adding to the problem, in my experience is that Outlook caches AD names rather 
than email addresses for local users, so when you set up a new user account 
using a reused email address, Outlook auto-completes with the old directory 
name.

Are you getting bounce backs involving IMCEAx kinds of addresses?



Steve Hart
Network Administrator
503.491.4343 -Direct | 503.492.8160 - Fax

From: Chris Pohlschneider [mailto:chris.pohlschnei...@hollowayusa.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 8:48 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OAB and GAL Entries

Hello,

I believe I already know the answer to this question, but I would like to 
bounce this off some more intelligent individuals about Exchange than I. We 
have an Exchange 2010 Resource forest (not my idea) and have no GAL sync 
utility (not my idea either) to sync between the forests. When we move a 
mailbox from an Exchange 2003 Forest to the Exchange 2010 forest and a user 
from the Exchange 2003 forest tries to send an e-mail to the same mailbox that 
has been moved to the Exchange 2010 resource forest, it does not work. When 
they send the e-mail, the auto-complete resolves the e-mail address to the 
Exchange Organization that they used to be a member and that is why the message 
fails. Until the user deletes that old auto complete entry and then types in 
the full e-mail address of the moved mailbox, only then can they send a 
message. My question is would a GAL sync utility take care of this issue? If a 
GAL sync utility would not resolve this, is there any other known way to get 
around this? I have users complaining about this and I knew that I would. Just 
trying to convince non-technical management on the best course of action to 
resolve this.

Chris Pohlschneider
Holloway Sportswear
Network Administrator
chris.pohlschnei...@hollowayusa.commailto:chris.pohlschnei...@hollowayusa.com
937-494-2559




OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums this morning.

2010-08-23 Thread Campbell, Rob
They seem to be broken.
**
Note: 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential 
and 
protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended  
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to  
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,   
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you  
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by  
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 
**
**
Note: 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential 
and 
protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended  
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to  
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,   
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you  
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by  
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 
**


RE: SSL recomendations

2010-08-23 Thread Ellis, John P.
They get my vote.



From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com] 
Sent: 23 August 2010 07:32
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SSL recomendations



Hi Steve

 

I can certainly second the endorsement of Digicert. Not the cheapest but
they are endorsed by MS as a UC cert vendor and I've always found there
support to be top notch!

 

Regards 

 

Peter Johnson
I.T Architect
United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542
South Africa: +27 11 252 1100
Swaziland: +268 442 7000
Fax:+27 11 974 7130
Mobile: +2783 306 0019
peter.john...@peterstow.com
www.peterstow.com

 

This email message (including attachments) contains information which
may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the
intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the
message or any information contained in the message or from any
attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received
this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and
delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information
contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability.
Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official
business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. 

Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information
contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation
or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower.
Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail,
should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal,
regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and
accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow
Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or
consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit,
interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or
otherwise.

The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold,
disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming
and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow
Aquapower. 

No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow
Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to
create and send this e-mail. 

  

From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] 
Sent: 20 August 2010 19:53
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: SSL recomendations

 

Lots of questions today!

 

I'm getting a cert for the new 2007 server. We currently have 2 servers
using different domain names that we will be consolidating into 1. We
will be consolidating domain names as well, but sometimes old habits
(and shortcuts) die hard. Our real world server name convention is
mail.domain.com

 

I'm thinking that I need to specify five FQDNs in the cert request:
mail.domain1.com, autodiscover.domain1.com, mail.domain2.com,
autodiscover.domain2.com, realservername.domain1.com .  Is that correct?

 

Secondly, I've been asked to get the cert from Godaddy.  Does anyone
know offhand if their StandardSSL for Multiple Domains is the right cert
to get?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Steve

 

 


**
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
**


image001.jpgimage002.jpg

RE: SSL recomendations

2010-08-23 Thread Martin Blackstone
We use them for our SAN certs. Work great and since I don't have to give my
money to VeriSign, it makes me feel good inside.

 

From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk] 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:14 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SSL recomendations

 

They get my vote.

 

  _  

From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com] 
Sent: 23 August 2010 07:32
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SSL recomendations

Hi Steve

 

I can certainly second the endorsement of Digicert. Not the cheapest but
they are endorsed by MS as a UC cert vendor and I've always found there
support to be top notch!

 

Regards 


Description: C:\Users\PeterTJ\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\peterstow
logo2.jpg

Peter Johnson
I.T Architect
United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542
South Africa: +27 11 252 1100
Swaziland: +268 442 7000
Fax:+27 11 974 7130
Mobile: +2783 306 0019
peter.john...@peterstow.com
www.peterstow.com

 

This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be
confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended
recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any
information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent
with this email, and If you have received this email message in error,
please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised
disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in
civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments
relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to
the company. 

Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information
contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or
inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any
decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only
be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax,
technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither
the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any
party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without
limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information,
data or software or otherwise.

The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or
incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other
marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. 

No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower
and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to create and send
this e-mail. 

 Description:
C:\Users\PeterTJ\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\environment2.jpg

From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] 
Sent: 20 August 2010 19:53
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: SSL recomendations

 

Lots of questions today!

 

I'm getting a cert for the new 2007 server. We currently have 2 servers
using different domain names that we will be consolidating into 1. We will
be consolidating domain names as well, but sometimes old habits (and
shortcuts) die hard. Our real world server name convention is
mail.domain.com

 

I'm thinking that I need to specify five FQDNs in the cert request:
mail.domain1.com, autodiscover.domain1.com, mail.domain2.com,
autodiscover.domain2.com, realservername.domain1.com .  Is that correct?

 

Secondly, I've been asked to get the cert from Godaddy.  Does anyone know
offhand if their StandardSSL for Multiple Domains is the right cert to get?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Steve

 

 

** 

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 

** 

image001.jpgimage002.jpg

Re: OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums this morning.

2010-08-23 Thread Eric
I just posted a questions a few minutes ago to the forums so they seem to be
working for me.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:50 AM, Campbell, Rob 
rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net wrote:

  They seem to be broken.

 **
 Note:
 The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential 
 and
 protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
 recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
 the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
 distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
 have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
 replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
 **

 **
 Note:
 The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential 
 and
 protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the intended
 recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
 the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
 distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
 have received this communication in error, please notosify us immediately by
 replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
 **




RE: OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums this morning.

2010-08-23 Thread Matt Moore
No problems for me, I've been in them since 7:00pm last night.  There have
been a lot of updates done over the weekend, maybe I was just lucky.

M

 

From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net] 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums
this morning.

 

They seem to be broken.


**
Note: 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and 
protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended  
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message
to  
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,   
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you

have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by  
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 

**

**
Note: 
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential
and 
protected from disclosure.  If the reader of this message is not the
intended  
recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message
to  
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,   
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you

have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by  
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. 

**


RE: OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums this morning.

2010-08-23 Thread Webster
I can't get to them either.

 

 

Webster

 

From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net] 
Subject: OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums
this morning.

 

They seem to be broken.



Re: OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet forums this morning.

2010-08-23 Thread Richard Stovall
Try going here to report the problem:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/reportabug/threads

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/reportabug/threadsOh
wait, nevermind.

But in all seriousness, I don't seem to be having trouble getting there.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Webster carlwebs...@gmail.com wrote:

 I can’t get to them either.





 Webster



 *From:* Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
 *Subject:* OT - Is anyone else having problems getting to the TechNet
 forums this morning.



 They seem to be broken.



RE: SSL recomendations

2010-08-23 Thread Louis, Joe
I just bought a cert from them and it comes standard with 5 SANs. I may try 
them when it comes time for my exchange cert to expire. I used Verisign because 
at the time Thawte didn't have SANs and Verisign was one of the only that did 
and worked with Exchange/mobile (or so I was told).

A lot has changed since then and I have to say getting this cert was pretty 
painless.

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 9:16 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SSL recomendations

We use them for our SAN certs. Work great and since I don't have to give my 
money to VeriSign, it makes me feel good inside.

From: Ellis, John P. [mailto:johnel...@wirral.gov.uk]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:14 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SSL recomendations

They get my vote.


From: Peter Johnson [mailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com]
Sent: 23 August 2010 07:32
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SSL recomendations
Hi Steve

I can certainly second the endorsement of Digicert. Not the cheapest but they 
are endorsed by MS as a UC cert vendor and I've always found there support to 
be top notch!

Regards
[cid:image001.jpg@01CB42D6.30ABA160]

Peter Johnson
I.T Architect
United Kingdom: +44 1285 658542
South Africa: +27 11 252 1100
Swaziland: +268 442 7000
Fax:+27 11 974 7130
Mobile: +2783 306 0019
peter.john...@peterstow.commailto:peter.john...@peterstow.com
www.peterstow.comhttp://www.peterstow.com


This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be 
confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, 
you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information 
contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this 
email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the 
sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of 
information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. 
Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of 
Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company.

Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information 
contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or 
inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any 
decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be 
made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, 
business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of 
the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any 
direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss 
of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or 
otherwise.

The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or 
incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other 
marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower.
No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower 
and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to create and send 
this e-mail.
 [cid:image002.jpg@01CB42D6.30ABA160]
From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com]
Sent: 20 August 2010 19:53
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: SSL recomendations

Lots of questions today!

I'm getting a cert for the new 2007 server. We currently have 2 servers using 
different domain names that we will be consolidating into 1. We will be 
consolidating domain names as well, but sometimes old habits (and shortcuts) 
die hard. Our real world server name convention is mail.domain.com

I'm thinking that I need to specify five FQDNs in the cert request: 
mail.domain1.com, autodiscover.domain1.com, mail.domain2.com, 
autodiscover.domain2.com, realservername.domain1.com .  Is that correct?

Secondly, I've been asked to get the cert from Godaddy.  Does anyone know 
offhand if their StandardSSL for Multiple Domains is the right cert to get?

Thanks in advance!

Steve



**

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.comhttp://www.clearswift.com

**
inline: image001.jpginline: image002.jpg

E-Mail Reporting

2010-08-23 Thread Sean Martin
Good morning,

I've recently started putting together some reports tracking various stats
regarding e-mail delivery in our environment. I'm currently reporting on the
following:

# of messages (Inbound/Outbound) by Day/Month
Amount of Data (Inbound/Outbound) by Month
Top 10 Recipients/Senders by Month

I'm currently pulling stats on internet bound/received e-mails only,
primarily because our gateways provide an easy method of exporting those
stats. Do any of you also track internal stats? What tools are you using?
We're running Exchange 2003 so I'm assuming other than a 3rd party product,
perfmon, message tracking and log parser are probably my best options for
generating stats. I'd be interested to hear of any other free tools
available.

Also, what are some of the other stats you all are tracking?

- Sean


Re: E-Mail Reporting

2010-08-23 Thread Stefan Jafs
www.promodag.com

SJ

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Sean Martin seanmarti...@gmail.com wrote:

 Good morning,

 I've recently started putting together some reports tracking various stats
 regarding e-mail delivery in our environment. I'm currently reporting on the
 following:

 # of messages (Inbound/Outbound) by Day/Month
 Amount of Data (Inbound/Outbound) by Month
 Top 10 Recipients/Senders by Month

 I'm currently pulling stats on internet bound/received e-mails only,
 primarily because our gateways provide an easy method of exporting those
 stats. Do any of you also track internal stats? What tools are you using?
 We're running Exchange 2003 so I'm assuming other than a 3rd party product,
 perfmon, message tracking and log parser are probably my best options for
 generating stats. I'd be interested to hear of any other free tools
 available.

 Also, what are some of the other stats you all are tracking?

 - Sean





-- 
Stefan Jafs


E2K7 SP1 - SP3

2010-08-23 Thread Stefan Jafs
I'm currently on E2K7, SP1 and would like to update to SP3. I also run BES
server 5.0.1.58 and also using Sunbelt SEA Archiver.

Anything to look out for?


-- 
Stefan Jafs


Re: E2K7 SP1 - SP3

2010-08-23 Thread bzalewski


I think you need to be on BES 5.0.2 for E2K7, SP3. 



http://na.blackberry.com/eng/support/software/server_compatibility.jsp 








- Original Message - 
From: Stefan Jafs stefan.j...@gmail.com 
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:37:29 PM 
Subject: E2K7 SP1 -  SP3 


I'm currently on E2K7, SP1 and would like to update to SP3. I also run BES 
server 5.0.1.58 and also using Sunbelt SEA Archiver. 

Anything to look out for? 


-- 
Stefan Jafs 


Re: E2K7 SP1 - SP3

2010-08-23 Thread Stefan Jafs
Thanks I'll update BES first,

Thanks for the info.

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM, bzalew...@comcast.net wrote:

  I think you need to be on BES 5.0.2 for E2K7, SP3.



 http://na.blackberry.com/eng/support/software/server_compatibility.jsp








 - Original Message -
 From: Stefan Jafs stefan.j...@gmail.com
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
 Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 2:37:29 PM
 Subject: E2K7 SP1 -  SP3

 I'm currently on E2K7, SP1 and would like to update to SP3. I also run BES
 server 5.0.1.58 and also using Sunbelt SEA Archiver.

 Anything to look out for?


 --
 Stefan Jafs




-- 
Stefan Jafs


resource calendar denied permission x2003

2010-08-23 Thread Bill Songstad
I have several resource calendars on my Exchange 2003 SP3 server.  They
auto-accept meeting requests as designed and have been for years. Recently
one of the calendars started bouncing meeting requests with a 5.7.1 for
anyone without full control of the mailbox.  The funny thing is, after
checking the permissions in both Outlook and AD, the perms seem identical to
the mailboxes that don't have any problems.  I'm sort of at a loss now as to
where to look.  If the permissions are the same in Outlook, and the same in
Active Directory, is there some place I can check for a more complete list
of permissions or some place I haven't checked.  These mailboxes should be
behaving the same.  Did I mention that this used to work properly and there
have been no changes to any of the mailbox accounts.

Thanks for any guidance

-Bill


Re: resource calendar denied permission x2003

2010-08-23 Thread Ben Scott
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Bill Songstad bsongs...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have several resource calendars on my Exchange 2003 SP3 server.

  Us too.

 Recently one of the calendars started bouncing meeting requests
 with a 5.7.1 for anyone without full control of the mailbox.

  Ideally, post a copy of the NDR.

 The funny thing is, after checking the permissions in both Outlook and
 AD, the perms seem identical to the mailboxes that don't have any
 problems.

  In Active Directory Users and Confusers, on the properties for the
resource mailbox's user account, check the Delivery Restrictions
section on the Exchange General tab.

 Did I mention that this used to work properly and there
 have been no changes to any of the mailbox accounts.

  Something changed or it would still work the same.  :)

  Any recent changes to client software (Outlook), anti-virus
software, or Exchange server configuration?

  When booking the room in Outlook, are you picking it as a Resource
(rather than Required or Optional)?

-- Ben




RE: E2K7 SP1 - SP3

2010-08-23 Thread greg.sweers
A call to Sunbelt to verify anything for SEA would be a good call.

From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:stefan.j...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 3:37 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: E2K7 SP1 -  SP3

I'm currently on E2K7, SP1 and would like to update to SP3. I also run BES 
server 5.0.1.58 and also using Sunbelt SEA Archiver.

Anything to look out for?


--
Stefan Jafs