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@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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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