RE: IT staff behavior
That puts them on-par with way too many techs I've encountered. With the advent of GUIs and now electronic documentation this syndrome is only getting worse. -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:57 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: IT staff behavior U Your users actually read your documentation? MINE REFUSE. They call no matter what. - Original Message - From: Schwartz, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:50 AM Subject: RE: IT staff behavior Then, if you get asked that question more than a few times (this is really where tracking trouble calls is useful) you should create and publish documentation on how the user can correct their problem. Do you have a list of your top ten trouble calls related to messaging? If you do, you can target the easy fixes and issues that the user can correct. They are happier since they are not waiting on you to fix their issue. You are happier because you can spend more time learning how to run an Exchange organization. -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:43 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: IT staff behavior Oh, I feel your pain Paul. I have to do both too. I was not implying that I have moved out of tha tmode. The worst thing is when you are deep in thought on a project, and have to get up every ten minutes because some freak wants to change their email stationery or something... - Original Message - From: Garland Mac Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 10:36 AM Subject: RE: IT staff behavior I feel for you, we have the same situation here. -Original Message- From: Paul Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: IT staff behavior unfortunatly-- I have to do both. Our agency is in between sizes where it's too small to have 2 seperate departments, but it's growing and becoming a pain in the ass sometimes for us 2 people who have to help everyone, administer the network, troubleshoot the phone system, etc.. I'm not complaining, it keeps me busy, but this non-profit is the largest in the county and getting bigger, and is becoming more and more of a handful everyday. Maybe I can get a part time individual from our Americorps division who is somewhat tech savvy to do the helpdesk stuff-- what do you think? :) paul green seattle -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:59 PM Posted To: Exchange 2000 Server Conversation: IT staff behavior Subject: Re: IT staff behavior Help desk s*cks. I prefer the infrastructure/implementation/development side. Too big a dose of users will make you sick - Original Message - From: Dan Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:53 PM Subject: RE: IT staff behavior Read http://www.techtales.com for the answer... -Original Message- From: Garland Mac Neill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Subject: RE: IT staff behavior You would think. But then again some people think that just because they have job that they can't be replaced. Which really kinds of pisses me off because I have friends who are qualified (probably over qualified) that would be happy to work again. Even if it was a help desk position. Which brings up the point of, if they don't want to help people with their issues, why did they get into this business in the first place? List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 7/15/2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 7/15/2002 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: IT staff behavior
...her boss who doesn't seem to care much If HER pain isn't HIS, then tell her to go on with life (because the place is hopeless). When this problem causes his next meeting to collide with the Donkey Dung Recycling Demonstration in the same room, her problem will get fixed. -Original Message- From: Andrew J. Lund, MCSE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: OT: IT staff behavior This is a query on protocol. My girlfriend calls me and tells me that her Outlook has lost several personal calendar items. This caused a double-booking of conference rooms and much pain and suffering. She is on a Mac with Outlook and I would imagine the servers are Win2K/Exchange 2K but I'm not certain. At any rate, she tells the helpdesk people that she is missing items among other things. They come look at it, shrug their shoulders and say they'll be back later. They never return. In fact, she calls them and they forgot all about her problem. (Others have this problem as well.) I don't know about you but if someone tells me something is missing from an email DB, I get right on it to figure out the issue (which is usually larger than just a few things missing). I told her that this is NOT acceptable IT protocol. I would like to think that a smooth network is one where workstations and servers are humming, no one has problems with the equipment or software, backups are working, and security is tight. Am I wrong here? Am I overreacting when I tell her that she needs to bring down the hammer on these so-called network professionals?? She is in no position to do anything but complain to her boss who doesn't seem to care much... Your thoughts... ~~ Andrew J. Lund, MCSE Systems Manager IEA - San Francisco ~~ List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Compacting
Make sure you upload the IS to Hotmail as an attachment, just in case -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:30 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Compacting Heh, shows how much you know, 6 month admin. The BLB HAS to be run while you are in the ESEUTIL GUI interface, otherwise the PST files will become corrupt. Sheesh - Original Message - From: Ely, Don [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Compacting Damn it you guys! I leave for a couple of hours and you start preaching about defrags and BLB's... Well I have a couple of questions since I are a beginner... Can I run Eseutil and my BLB process at the same time? What time should I start this process? As soon as it is complete should I run ISINTEG? What you you experts think? -Original Message- From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:07 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Compacting Here fishy fishy. Fresh fish. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:02 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Compacting Ive been an eXch admin for almost 6 months now, so I think I know what I am doing. -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:58 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Compacting O crap. Are you nutz? You are trying to defend running ESEUTIL AND BLBs?? Do you have a death wish? That has never been done successfully. Not individually, nor collectively. All hard core Exchange Admins who have been doing this for years have both of those items on the black list. We have gone round and round here for months on both issues. - Original Message - From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:50 PM Subject: RE: Compacting thats why I do BLB. -Original Message- From: Steve Balen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Compacting Again, defragmentation happens daily when ese runs. I am assuming this person means don't compact the store. Running eseutil can be a dangerous thing. Running either of the utilities that will change the structure of the store, can be a dangerous thing and should only be done in extreme measures (like if the IS wont start and you don't have a decent-recent backup of the store, or if you have a huge priv.edb file are running out of diskspace and know that compacting would free up a lot of space an have cheap managers who wont spend money on either more disk space or another server to offload folks to). As you will see, many folks in here are weary (with good reason) about running eseutil against the store. About the only util people tend to run is isinteg just to check the integrity of the store. Even if it needs to be fixed, most folks will just build another server and move mailboxes off of the server with a store that may have a lot of errors or is too big for its own good. Bottom line again, is to only use eseutil as a last ditch effort or isinteg -fix if the store is not accessible. FWIW - these are the reasons you keep impeccable backups of your stores and transaction logs - just like Wilford Brimley says check your blood sugar and check it often, exchange admins say check your backups and check them daily. Once you have a good base of backups, a couple weeks to a month, you will want to test and document your disaster recovery methods 1) to make sure it works and b) to get it down packed so you can do it in a minimal amount of time. Also, I recommend never letting your stores (mostly the priv.edb) get out of hand (getting too big) because it becomes harder to manage it (longer to back it up, longer to restore it, etc.) If it does get too big, either implement strict or more strict mailbox storage policies or simply build another exchange server and move users off of it - if it is e2k, of course, storage groups are a god send for thing like this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] at INTERNET Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:10 PM To: Balen, Steve B - Raleigh, NC; [EMAIL PROTECTED] at INTERNET Subject: RE: Compacting Never? -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:07 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Compacting DON'T DEFRAG!!! - Original Message - From: Bill Beckett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: RE: Compacting 2000, 5.5, all versions? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 1:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Compacting Has it been a
RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail
not to fear...the sheep like it. B at least this still involves rerouting outgoing males. -Original Message- From: Kurt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail Nothing really - I suspect they'd give you a really good grip on the sheep. | -Original Message- | From: Bill Beckett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 12:02 | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | What's wrong with Velcro gloves? | | | -Original Message- | From: Schwartz, Jim [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:54 PM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject:RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | I'm not the one with the Velcro gloves... | | -Original Message- | From: Steven Peck DNET [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:39 PM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | I'll take your word on it's existence. | That you checked that it exists concerns me. ;) | | -Original Message- | From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 11:32 AM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | That you even know that newsgroup exists worries me. | | -Original Message- | From: Preston Jeffares [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:24 PM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | BUWAHAHAHAHAH... you subbed your manager to that list | as well? I | subbed | mine to... | | alt.sheep.stories.crossdressing.romance | | -Original Message- | From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:22 PM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | Does that tool cc: my manager if I send as my manager and | subscribe him to | a sheep discussions mailing list using telnet? | | -Original Message- | From: Crouthamel, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:13 AM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | http://www.intellireach.com/ | | Used to be microdata | | -Original Message- | From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:08 PM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: RE: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | Solution: Fire said employee or hire better managers. | | | -Original Message- | From: Cosner, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:05 PM | To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues | Subject: Re-routing Outgoing mail | | | Basic Info: Exchange 5.5 SP3 and Outlook 2000 | | Desired result: Any outgoing email destined for the | internet from a | specific user should be quarantined. Management wishes | to review | the emails | before they are sent. | | TIA. | | Jeff Coz Cosner | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | | List Charter and FAQ at: | http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm | | | | -- | -- | -- | The information contained in this email message is | privileged and | confidential information intended only for the use of | the individual | or | entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this | message is | not the | intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any | dissemination, | distribution or copy of this message is strictly | prohibited. If you | have | received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis | Suhler | Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax | (212)381-8168, or email | ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. | | | == | == | == | | | List Charter and FAQ at: | http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm | | | | | | *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** | This email and any files transmitted with it are | confidential and | intended | for the listed recipient(s). If you have received this email in | error | please notify the sender by return mail. Opinions, | conclusions and | other | information in this message that do not relate to | official company | business | shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by | Datavision-Prologix. | | List Charter and FAQ at: | http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm | | List Charter and FAQ
RE: How much Bandwidth?
It can work over as little as a 33.6K link (I've not tried less). Give it more, and it takes it up to the transmission capabilities of the link and CPUs involved. -Original Message- From: Ambrose, Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 9:44 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: How much Bandwidth? Hello Exchange Experts! Can you tell me how much bandwidth the Outlook - Exchange RPC connections uses? Exch 5.5 sp4 Outlook 97 sr-2 / Outlook 2000 Joseph Ambrose System and Network Manager The Conference Board P: 001-212-339-0443 F: 001-212-836-3802 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Award Winning Web Site: www.conference-board.org List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Deletion of Messages
Read the msg in preview pane then delete -- no read receipt: deleted w/o reading or some such. Nice, huh? -Original Message- From: Ken Leyba [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:02 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Deletion of Messages One of our [l]users apparently while using the mailbox of another user (I hate when they allow this) swears he didn't delete any messages (yea right) but one of the VP Assistants started receiving notifications of messages not being read with the read receipts requested. Now they are asking me why this happened, naturally. So the only way I can think of is a) he actually deleted the items or b) if the Deleted Items folder Auto Archive properties is set to permanently delete old items and he chose yes to an auto archive request. Is there any other way this could have been caused? Oh, yea Exchange 5.5 SP4 on Win2K SP2/SRP1 with Outlook 2000. Thx, Ken P.S. How ironic that the spell check corrects [l]users to louses. - Ken Leyba Windows/Exchange System Administrator California State University Dominguez Hills List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Who's on first? Who's on OAW?
yes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Who's on first? Who's on OAW? is there anyway to tell who is connected to our OWA server? thanks! List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: RE: Who's on first? Who's on OAW?
Is this heading toward which mailbox is being accessed or WHO is connected (as originally requested)? (it's Friday and I'm grumpy) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: RE: Who's on first? Who's on OAW? okay - trick question - how? - Original Message - From: Dillon, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:22 pm Subject: RE: Who's on first? Who's on OAW? yes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Who's on first? Who's on OAW? is there anyway to tell who is connected to our OWA server? thanks! List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
FW: SPAM from this list???
What keeps anyone out, or prevents address extraction? ...correct -- nothing! -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 2:04 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: SPAM from this list??? Has anyone had problems with the following??? I am curious whether there are kampers on this list, or if this list is being sold. I am not interested in gaining SPAM due to my list memberships: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 12:44 PM To: Matthew Carpenter Subject: Ease Exchange Administration Hello Matthew, My name is Tom Verde blah...blah Tom Verde Account Manager J2K Technology (Discus Data Partner) (516) 488-7625 x3 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: AOL postmaster errors
We set it to 40 terabytes and make them keep copies in their parking space -Original Message- From: Toni, Randy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:27 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors I have 10 as a default. Let the huddled masses squirm -Original Message- From: Sethi, Ali [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:29 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors Whose that guy on this list that has the 8mb mailbox limits. Now he's an email Nazi. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:20 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors You block jpg's? You email nazi. -Original Message- From: Jeremiah Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors You got that right. we love em' jpg's on Antigen. -Original Message- From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors Actually the bosses wife has an aol account. Or is it the bosses mistress... Well one of them does. He'll be pissed if cant receive his booty call emails. -Original Message- From: Jeremiah Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:58 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors LOL, Yeah As the bosses Home email ceases to come into the company. :-P He'd love that one. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:56 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors Just block *@aol.com in the message filtering section of IMS properties. :o) -Original Message- From: Jeremiah Watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 12:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: AOL postmaster errors Yep, I have a client whose email address was being spoofed used as the return address for spam. He would average between 3/400 NDR's a day from Various Domains and I know he wasn't sending it out. We had to change his Email Address to get it to stop. -Original Message- From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 3:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: AOL postmaster errors Has anyone seen this before? It looks like someone is using a mailbox from one of our users and sending all kinds of emails out. We have NAV for Exchange blocking all attachements that are suspect to be virus attachments. The users is complaining that she is getting a ton of these post master errors. Any suggestions on how to eliminate this? We are not setup as relaying. Exhange 5.5 sp4 Windows 2k sp2 sr1 Thanks, The original message was received at Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:04:36 -0400 (EDT) from logs-wq.proxy.aol.com [205.188.200.132] *** ATTENTION *** Your e-mail is being returned to you because there was a problem with its delivery. The address which was undeliverable is listed in the section labeled: - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -. The reason your mail is being returned to you is listed in the section labeled: - Transcript of Session Follows -. The line beginning with describes the specific reason your e-mail could not be delivered. The next line contains a second error message which is a general translation for other e-mail servers. Please direct further questions regarding this message to your e-mail administrator.
RE: Sorry test with new subscription
Jeez guys...drop YOU into Belgium and see how far you get... -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Sorry test with new subscription Then work on your spelling -Original Message- From: mark verschaeve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 7:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Sorry test with new subscription I 'm trying to sove my posting problem! List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Sorry test with new subscription
And Wolbers wobble but they don't fall down -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 1:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Sorry test with new subscription Claude Criquelon is a sore loser. -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:18 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Sorry test with new subscription What is wrong with Belgium? --Kevinm CHFR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: Rybski Dajo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Sorry test with new subscription I'll second that. :p Dajo -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Verzonden: dinsdag 9 april 2002 17:08 Aan: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Onderwerp: RE: Sorry test with new subscription Jeez guys...drop YOU into Belgium and see how far you get... -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Sorry test with new subscription Then work on your spelling -Original Message- From: mark verschaeve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 7:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Sorry test with new subscription I 'm trying to sove my posting problem! List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Services terminating unexpectedly!
XADM: Services Stop Unexpectedly After You Install Service Pack 1 While Trend Micro ScanMail 5.0 Is Also Installed (Q308600) -Original Message- From: Paul Armstrong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Services terminating unexpectedly! I keep getting errors in my logs about services terminating unexpectedly and I am unsure if they are related to Exchange2K or Win2K or both! The error is Event ID: 7031 and the error is: The World Wide Web Publishing Service service terminated unexpectedly. It has done this 17 time(s). The following corrective action will be taken in 0 milliseconds: No action. This error occurs for the following services: IISAdmin, Exchange IMAP4, NNTP, Exchange POP3, Exchange Routing Engine, SMTP, WWW. All in that order. I have done searches on technet for the Event ID and it responds with nothing related to this issue. I have no idea why this is occuring. The server is W2K SP2 running Exchnage2K and SQL2K. The last thing that was installed on the box was Diskkeeper which I didn't install. I am not sure if the issue is related to Diskkeeper. The events I see before this issue deals with an IIS stop stop command being issued by the NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM and also the NNTP service being started. The only other errors I get are Event ID: 36871 which deals with SSL certs which arent being used and Technet states that there isn't a fix for this other than installing a cert to the SMTP site or that it can be safely ignored. Any ideas on why this is happening? Anybody have this issue before. TIA! .+- @Aಫa‾ 0z[lpjo畣Z\྅zm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: How can I regain Disk Space
That would cost $6.80/user! The boss wants him to instead sweat bullets for another 2 years. -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:34 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space I meant throw in 2 18 gig drives. -Original Message- From: Dawn R. Ashford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:24 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space We have under 50 users, and the server is scheduled to be upgraded in 2004 they tell me.. so.. I just keep a watch on it. My safety net is the fact that we have mirrored drives, and if it comes to the end of the rope we can elect to break that mirror and gain another 9 gigs of space. I do a full tape back up every night, but the mirror is a safety feature I hate to lose. -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space wow. You can't upgrade that? -Original Message- From: Dawn R. Ashford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space I have very limited storage space on my Small Business Server 4.5, Exchange 5.5. Just a 9 gig drive for the whole company to run on! So, space is always an issue. When I run eseutil I actually have to redirect the temp file to another network drive to have space for the utility to run. If you don't have enough free space (I believe it requires 1 and 1/2 times the size of the database you need to compact) see Q182903 for command line structure to redirect the temp file. Dawn Ashford System Administrator High Five Entertainment 16th Ave South Nashville, TN 37212 V 615 321-2540 F 615 321-2546 -Original Message- From: Chris Pohlschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space you may have to run an offline defrag to regain the disk space after everyone has cleaned out their mailboxes -Original Message- From: Nick Symiakakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:26 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: How can I regain Disk Space Hello Everyone, Once again I need some advice from the Exchange Gurus. I am running Exchange 5.5, and I am running dangerously low on disk space on the Exchange Server. I had everyone in our organization clean out their Inbox, Sent Items, and Deleted Items yesterday. When I looked at the disk space today, it was actually lower than yesterday. I do not understand this. If the mailboxes are getting smaller, why is the database not shrinking? Is there any other way to regain disk space? I preformed a full backup of the Information Store, and Directory yesterday. I appreciate any advice on this matter, Nick Symiakakis Noble Hospital [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 3/11/2002 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 3/11/2002 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: How can I regain Disk Space
She said I have very limited storage space...So, space is always an issue. $400 fixes it, so why is anyone loosing sleep? Lack of storage is most easily fixed by buying more. -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:44 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space Not the lady with the 2 9gig drives. She was pointing out you can redirect your temp file during esutil. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space Am I missing something or didn't the user say they are tight on space? -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:14 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space Seems like if she's not really that tight on space, why would she give up redundancy? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 11:05 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space Take the 2 disks and create a stripe set. You will lose the redundancy, but double the amount of disk space. -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:02 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space Stripe em? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:56 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space 2004??? WTF is that?? FSK it. Break the mirror and stripe em. -Original Message- From: Dawn R. Ashford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:24 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space We have under 50 users, and the server is scheduled to be upgraded in 2004 they tell me.. so.. I just keep a watch on it. My safety net is the fact that we have mirrored drives, and if it comes to the end of the rope we can elect to break that mirror and gain another 9 gigs of space. I do a full tape back up every night, but the mirror is a safety feature I hate to lose. -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 10:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space wow. You can't upgrade that? -Original Message- From: Dawn R. Ashford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 9:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space I have very limited storage space on my Small Business Server 4.5, Exchange 5.5. Just a 9 gig drive for the whole company to run on! So, space is always an issue. When I run eseutil I actually have to redirect the temp file to another network drive to have space for the utility to run. If you don't have enough free space (I believe it requires 1 and 1/2 times the size of the database you need to compact) see Q182903 for command line structure to redirect the temp file. Dawn Ashford System Administrator High Five Entertainment 16th Ave South Nashville, TN 37212 V 615 321-2540 F 615 321-2546 -Original Message- From: Chris Pohlschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:29 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space you may have to run an offline defrag to regain the disk space after everyone has cleaned out their mailboxes -Original Message- From: Nick Symiakakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:26 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: How can I regain Disk Space Hello Everyone, Once again I need some advice from the Exchange Gurus. I am running Exchange 5.5, and I am running dangerously low on disk space on the Exchange Server. I had everyone in our organization clean out their Inbox, Sent Items, and Deleted Items yesterday. When I looked at the disk space today, it was actually lower than yesterday. I do not understand this. If the mailboxes are getting smaller, why is the database not shrinking? Is there any other way to regain disk space? I preformed a full backup of the Information Store, and Directory yesterday. I appreciate any advice on this matter, Nick Symiakakis Noble Hospital [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 3/11/2002 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at:
RE: How can I regain Disk Space
What are your mailbox limits? If none, then this mess is self-inflicted. If you do have limits in place, you will need to squeeze them downward as people respond (good luck) to your cleanup requests. Otherwise, growing your array is the only solution. Since money is tight, sell the RAID controller and drives on eBay and use the money to buy the fatty ATA drive. -Original Message- From: Dawn R. Ashford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space I hate to be testy William.. but not everyone has the budget you must have. It's not an option for everyone to run Exchange with the recommended set up from MS. Some of us have to keep track of free space, and do a little housekeeping when it's necessary to free up space. Don't limit your creativity by always buying new hardware :) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space It means buy a new hard drive. You can afford Exchange, you can afford to use it properly. Running an offline defrag will net you 4MB approx (it's probably more as event ID 1221 actually shows a conservative number). -Original Message- From: Nick Symiakakis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 8:40 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: How can I regain Disk Space It says that it sees 4 MB after online Defrag. What does this mean? I know we cleaned out a heck of a lot more than that. List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
FW: Antigen/ CA thread hijack
That's a nice try, but the letter from somebody whose last name appears to be Esquire is already on the way. ... we're talking about CAlifornia , right? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen/ CA thread hijack I like the forum monitoring idea. Many of us represent the users of the applications and not always the decision makers. I like the notion of getting the opinions of those of us sentenced to administering CA products in an attempt to address product short-comings. Kudos to CA for making that effort. -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen/ CA thread hijack LOL They are monitoring lists to see who hates them. Too funny. Shouldn't they be on the phone handling customer service calls? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen/ CA thread hijack I think it's more Enterprise focussed than ArcServeIT and has greater functionality. But I absolutely detest when marketing people use terms like: BrightStor is CA's industry-leading end-to-end storage management solution. Industry-leading??? searches for vomit bag -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:53 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen/ CA thread hijack Isn't brightstor that same thing new name?? What have you done with our William? --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Did I just say that out loud? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen/ CA thread hijack Their Brightstor product is much better than its ArcServeIT predecessor. Most of my comments and vomitting pertain to their abyssmal effort with the Exchange agents. But we don't want to bring that up again... -Original Message- From: Clark, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:42 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Antigen/ CA thread hijack FYI - CA is monitoring this list somewhat. I got a nice phone call or 2 and an even more PC email from someone asking why I didn't like their products. Apparently, they really don't like my website full of comments from Mr. Lefkovics. I indicated to them they should really offer an QA forum on this list with Stu's assistance or at least respond to some of the customers having problems As far as I know, they never went that route - I guess it's not safe to approach the numbers Steve Clark Clark Systems Support, LLC AVIEN Charter Member Who's watching your network? www.clarksupport.com 301-610-9584 voice 240-465-0323 Efax The data furnished in connection with this document is deemed by Clark Systems Support, LLC., to contain proprietary and privileged information and shall not be disclosed or used for the benefit of others without the prior written permission of Clark Systems Support, LLC. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:38 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen Oh goodness. Schedule the uninstall for Friday night to give you lots of time to recover if necessary. Do you also need to de-unicenter this server? William -Original Message- From: Stephen J. Norton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen While we are on the subject, has anyone run InnocualteIT for Exchange and Antigen concurrently on an Exchange server? If not, what has been the experience of un-installing InnoculateIT? Thanks again. Steve -Original Message- From: Clark, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 2:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen Yup - they did a blurb on an email some time back. Steve Clark Clark Systems Support, LLC AVIEN Charter Member Who's watching your network? www.clarksupport.com 301-610-9584 voice 240-465-0323 Efax The data furnished in connection with this document is deemed by Clark Systems Support, LLC., to contain proprietary and privileged information and shall not be disclosed or used for the benefit of others without the prior written permission of Clark Systems Support, LLC. - List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List
RE: Connection Terminated after 9nth message
A 10054 socket error in this context is not an indication of a problem, but is currently known and expected behavior. It happens any time a WinSock connection is closed down (TCP/IP or TP4, whether clean or dirty). Although this event by itself may be confusing, it is not harmful. Winsock Error code 10054 (WSAECONNRESET) indicates a Connection reset by peer. for a list of Winsock error codes, please see the following article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: Q150537 Windows Sockets Error Codes, Values, and Meaning -Original Message- From: Adil Hindistan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 04 March 2002 14:59 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Connection Terminated after 9nth message Hi All, We are having a strange problem. Some of our POP3 client users are reporting the same problem: We are receiving an error message after exactly 9 messages are downloaded and when we try again, it downloads the same 9 messages Error message is: Some messages couldn't be retrieved from the server Socket Error:10054 Error Number:0x800CCC0F Your server has unexpectedly terminated the connection. We're using E2K+SP2 Any comments please ? TIA Adil Hindistan, CE-93, MCP Yahoo: sc0ri0n ICQ: 26477783 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
FW: DUMB Question
Now ask him how many kilobits in a milligigabyte. His head will unscrew and fall on the floor... -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:46 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: DUMB Question Thank you everyone, at least I am crazy but not totally ignorant, -Original Message- From: Matt Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:31 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: DUMB Question give this to your boss. As a Unit of Measure We use bytes, like bits, to measure capacities and speeds. To distinguish bytes from bits (lowercase b), we use an uppercase B. For large numbers of bytes we add prefixes such as K, M, G, T. KB = Kilobyte (KIL-oh-biit) = Thousand bytes (actually 1,024). MB = Megabyte (MAAG-uh-biit) = Million bytes (technically 1,024 x 1,024 = 1,048,576). GB = Gigabyte (GIG-uh-biit) = Billion bytes. BrainAid: Giga rhymes with bigga. Think bigga = billion. TB = Terabyte (TAIR-uh-biit) = Trillion bytes. Matt - Original Message - From: William Lefkovics To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:27 AM Subject: RE: DUMB Question YES! Absolutely yes. -Original Message- From: Matthew Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 11:25 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: DUMB Question I am having a typical issue with a nontech manager. In the mailbox resources page of the private information store it shows mailbox resource size totals in K. That total, in the 1,000s is equivalent to MB, right? Now he is confusing the hell out of me too, much less himself. For example, if Joe Blow is using 23,254 K, he has a mailbox that is using roughly 23 MB of space, right? Sheesh List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Architecture question
Assuming you're on a 100Mbps LAN, are you users going to be happy with 45Mbps (best case--are you tiered or burstable?) access to their mailboxes? More important--where in this scheme are the tape units located? -Original Message- From: Bob Falkenberg [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 21, 2002 2:25 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Architecture question Hello Folks, Currently I have 4 Exchange 5.5 SP4 servers running on NT4.0 here in my server room. 3 user servers and 1 server hosting the IMC and OWA. As part of the disaster recovery plan and because of other reliability issues the head of my group wants us to move a BDC to a remote collocation. At the same time they are asking me what servers if any from the Exchange site we could move to the co-location. They have a DS3 in place for connectivity to the co-location. I don't think I want to move the user servers but can anyone give reasons not to move the IMC/OWA server to the co-location? Bob Falkenberg List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Architecture question
OWA users should be happy with the DS3, but the issue is backups. Flames erupt in the MAIN location as the daily backup finishes. I'm gonna guess a changer full of tapes will be the first to go. At that point, you've got an enterprise restore in front of you and the REMOTE tape will surely have directory info that is out-of-sync with the archive tapes that you're now forced to pull out. Current IMAGES at each site can be as important as the hardware--can you use the idle DS3 (at nite) to secure a remote backup (can fit your window)? -Original Message- From: Bob Falkenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Architecture question User servers to remain here in house. There is no way in hell am I moving the user servers to collocation when the LUSERS love to send HUGE excel files to each other constantly. IMC/OWA server at collocation to have at least one machine with a copy of the current directory up and running till we could restore the user servers. What impact would having the OWA server/IMC at the other end of that 43MB connection? Yes its slower but the OWA users are on that connection inbound already. That would just move one of the hops from in front of the server to behind it. But will the OWA connect reliably over that DS3 connection to the user servers from the collocation? Thanks for the input guys... I am getting closer to that pros and cons worksheet I need to turn into the boss. There would be a bdc, tape unit and other backup servers at the collocation. The boss wants to get any of our infrastructure that makes sense into the collocation. Bob F. -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:41 PM To: 'MS-Exchange Admin Issues' Cc: Bob Falkenberg Subject: RE: Architecture question Assuming you're on a 100Mbps LAN, are you users going to be happy with 45Mbps (best case--are you tiered or burstable?) access to their mailboxes? More important--where in this scheme are the tape units located? -Original Message- From: Bob Falkenberg [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 21, 2002 2:25 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Architecture question Hello Folks, Currently I have 4 Exchange 5.5 SP4 servers running on NT4.0 here in my server room. 3 user servers and 1 server hosting the IMC and OWA. As part of the disaster recovery plan and because of other reliability issues the head of my group wants us to move a BDC to a remote collocation. At the same time they are asking me what servers if any from the Exchange site we could move to the co-location. They have a DS3 in place for connectivity to the co-location. I don't think I want to move the user servers but can anyone give reasons not to move the IMC/OWA server to the co-location? Bob Falkenberg List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Applying Mailbox Limits....After the Fact
The folks reporting these gigantic stores, limits or not, need to seriously work on establishing credibility with upper management. IT has to be able to persuasively defend reasonable use of shared resources--these horror stories are all examples of the tail wagging the dog because the tail doesn't trust the dog to do it right. -Original Message- From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact We had the same problem. The previous IT members setup the Exchange server with no limits. It was a nightmare. Every mailbox was over 1gb. Our exchange server would go down constantly (atleast twice a week). Finally after much neglect our Exchange server died. Took a lot of heat for the long outage. I began to check the log files in Veritas and discovered that 80% of the emails in all these mailboxes were just BS emails like jokes, mp3's, chain emails. We submitted our reports to our CEO and told him that if we don't put certain policies in place these outages will constantly happen. Once he reviewed the data we collected he gave us his blessing to do what we want and enforce all polices. I think that no one taught the users how to delete emails. We finally put our foot down and setup limits of only 60mb per mailbox. Users whined and complained but we stood our ground. We began to block emails with certain extensions from passing thru our exchange server. With some daily routine maintenance and putting these simple measures in place we have drastically increased our uptime to almost 100%. Now the users are accustomed to the policies in place and everyone is happy. You always seem to take more heat when your Exchange server is down and everyone is looking thru your server room window with a nasty look and constantly knocking on your door asking when Exchange will be back up because they need to send out a very important joke to their colleagues. A -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:08 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact They tend to save the little metal handles from Chinese carryout containers, also just in case. You gotta fill the living room with something, no? -Original Message- From: William Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 17:53 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact True indeed. We've got exec levels at over a Gig mailboxes. Pretty ridiculous, eh. That's what happens when they build an exchange server w/o limits! W -Original Message- From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact 275 warning, 300 prohibit. Wow that's pretty lenient. You must have ample IS space on your server. Im forced to set mine at 50MB warning 60 mB prohibit. But then again there are over 500 mailboxes. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact Use the HEADERS.EXE file to build a CSV template of the mandatory and optional values you want to extract from the database. Use the directory export tool with the CSV file you generated with HEADERS and then set the limits you wanted on the boxes you wanted, then import. Barring that, and you want to set a GLOBAL value, use the values on the server in the Private Information Store object. This will not overwrite any values set on individual mailboxes. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. -Original Message- From: William Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact Right that's the basic idea I was thinking about, but I'd prefer not to manually set the individual mailbox limits.I was hoping someone had a script. 10q W -Original Message- From: Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:42 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact The best way I can think of is to set a global limit on all mailboxes and then specify the limits for those over on a per mailbox basis. Neil -Original Message- From: William Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 February 2002 19:13 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact Does anyone know of a utility or script that can do the following under Exchange 5.5, Win2k Server SP2, About 250
RE: Applying Mailbox Limits....After the Fact
They tend to save the little metal handles from Chinese carryout containers, also just in case. You gotta fill the living room with something, no? -Original Message- From: William Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 17:53 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact True indeed. We've got exec levels at over a Gig mailboxes. Pretty ridiculous, eh. That's what happens when they build an exchange server w/o limits! W -Original Message- From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact 275 warning, 300 prohibit. Wow that's pretty lenient. You must have ample IS space on your server. Im forced to set mine at 50MB warning 60 mB prohibit. But then again there are over 500 mailboxes. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact Use the HEADERS.EXE file to build a CSV template of the mandatory and optional values you want to extract from the database. Use the directory export tool with the CSV file you generated with HEADERS and then set the limits you wanted on the boxes you wanted, then import. Barring that, and you want to set a GLOBAL value, use the values on the server in the Private Information Store object. This will not overwrite any values set on individual mailboxes. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Be who you are and say what you feel because those who matter don't mind, and those who mind don't matter. -Original Message- From: William Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact Right that's the basic idea I was thinking about, but I'd prefer not to manually set the individual mailbox limits.I was hoping someone had a script. 10q W -Original Message- From: Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:42 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact The best way I can think of is to set a global limit on all mailboxes and then specify the limits for those over on a per mailbox basis. Neil -Original Message- From: William Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 February 2002 19:13 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Applying Mailbox LimitsAfter the Fact Does anyone know of a utility or script that can do the following under Exchange 5.5, Win2k Server SP2, About 250 or so recipients: I would like to apply mailbox limits at 275mb warn and 300mb disable send. The twist is that for existing users over 300mb I would like their limit warning to be 75mb more than what they currently have and their disable send limit to be 100mb more than what they have. Is there a utility or script available that will scan my mailboxes and apply these limits? Maybe I haven't figured out the correct wording yet but I can't find any reference to this on the web or technet. Thanks, William L. Smith Systems Administrator Riptech, Inc. Real-Time Information Protection 2800 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 http://www.riptech.com w: (703) 373-5158 c: (703) 946-0894 f: (703) 373-6158 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Antigen filter *.*.* - worthwhile?
Is anyone aware of this same issue with Trend? Thanks. -Original Message- From: Wendel, Jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 12:23 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen filter *.*.* - worthwhile? Actually, no. The Internet Scan Job in Antigen, filtering on *.com, allows *.*.com to get through. This is a known bug. It works properly on the Realtime and Manual scan jobs - its only the Internet Scan Job which is at risk. I don't know if the issue extends beyond *.com to *.vbs. This became an issue last week with the My Party worm, where the Internet Scan Job was letting it into the system, but then the Realtime job was grabbing it. Antigen is working on a fix. In the meantime, Premium Support has suggested you configure your Internet Scan Job to filter on *.*.com. For more information, contact Sybari directly. Best, Jesse Wendel Sr. Messaging Analyst www.pse.com -Original Message- From: Bill Kuhn - MCSE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 8:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Antigen filter *.*.* - worthwhile? I don't see the need for it. Antigen will filter based on the last extension in a file with multiple extensions. This is the same way Windows associates the file with an application. Given a file mytrojan.doc.vbs, Antigen will pick it off if you are set to filter .VBS. It's never missed one for me. -Original Message- From: Bob Peitzke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Antigen filter *.*.* - worthwhile? We run Antigen 6.2 on our Exchange 5.5 server. We were advised by Sybari support to include the filter, *.*.*, which they said are often viruses (e.g. annakournikova.jpg.vbs). We tried it for a while, but were quarantining too many valid user attachments, and they rebelled, so I compromised and removed that filter. We are filtering exe, bat, cmd, com, vbs, vb, js, shs, lnk, pif, scr, hta, htm, and *.*} (whatever that is). Also we are using three AV engines, and updating them frequently. As I understand it, the *.*.* filter would only come into play on a new virus for which we don't yet have the signature, and is some other scripting language that we are not filtering. I'd like to get feedback on the protection compromise of not filtering *.*.* attachments. How many of you are using that filter? Do you think it adds significant protection? Have we missed any valuable filters? TIA Bob Peitzke Information Systems Manager Sander A. Kessler Associates Santa Monica, CA, USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: PROBLEM WITH RULES WIZARD
Tell him it's safer to fwd porn interlaced in a copy of the company policy manual -- NOBODY looks in there -Original Message- From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 3:14 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: PROBLEM WITH RULES WIZARD OK, Outlook 2000. There are rules set for junk and adult content which forward individual email from specific addresses or any email from a specific domain directly to the deleted items folder. An internal email from my CEO was dumped directly into the deleted items folder unread and I never saw it come in. Obviously, I do not have our domain or any of our staff members names included in the list of names and domains to be deleted. Murray -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:05 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: PROBLEM WITH RULES WIZARD well, ok. First of all: Outlook..? www.slipstick.com Secondly, without showing us the rule, I don't see how we can help, really. Rules aren't SUPPOSED to do that sort of thing, but you haven't even told us the Outlook version number... Or the Exchange version number... -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. John G. Riefenbaker -Original Message- From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:22 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: PROBLEM WITH RULES WIZARD As a result in the increase in junk mail and other unwanted email, I turned the Rules Wizard on to direct specific names and domains to send these emails directly to the deleted items folder. I have just determined that Internal email from our staff has managed to be intercepted by the Rules Wizard and dumped some internal email into the deleted items folder. I have no way of knowing why or how this happened. Is there a problem with the Rules Wizard that anyone knows about? I'm disabling the Rules Wizard until I can determine just what is happening. Murray List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
FW: 100% CPU when Synch
I'm not sure I buy this analysis...if a LOCAL virus-scanning utility is scanning email hosted on an Exchange system that also has virus software active, the ability of the client machine to request the next item for synchronization is REDUCED by the local overhead of scanning the item. If anything, the local scanning REDUCES the load on the Exchange server by limiting the rate at which the clients can task the server. We run local and server-based Exchange anti-virus software simultaneously, and have seen none of the problems mentioned. I suggest the problem lies elsewhere, and the original comment that ...a FEW of these (clients) are pegging the CPU is your clue. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch If you have AV on your Exchange server as well, turn that option off on the clients. Think of it this way. Your Exchange AV program and your desktop AV (NAV-CE) are basically fighting to see who gets to scan the e-mail. Whoever gets to it first locks it and the other one can't get to it. Normally, the Exchange AV program will win. Hence, you have problems on your desktops. Turn it off on the client side, and I bet your problems will go away. It's understandable to want to have it running - heck, our Security team wanted us to turn it on, until we explained to them the hurt it could cause. Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: MHR(Michael Ross) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch Yes, with the Outloook\exchange option... -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch With the Exchange/Outlook add-on or no? Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: MHR(Michael Ross) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:50 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch could be.. we are using NAV CE on all the clients... -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch Aunty Virus? William Lefkovics, MCSE, A+ --- Why just ride, when you can fly? http://www.airborne.net --- Rent this space: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: MHR(Michael Ross) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 9:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: 100% CPU when Synch I have alot Outlook 2000 SP2 clients connecting to an Exchange 5.5 server. A few of these pc's are pegging the CPU at 100% when you force a synchronization with the ost file. This also happens whenever the client itself syncs up with the OST file.. anyone have any ideas? Michael Ross Network Analyst 2 Panduit Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] If at first you don't succeed, Skydiving isn't for you. List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: 100% CPU when Synch
The server and client don't fight for the messages--the client tells the server to send a message, the server sends it (whether the server first scans it or not is irrelevant) and the client then scans it. The more CPU cycles spent scanning by the client, the less cycles are available to request the next message, reducing the server load. As you've seen from the follow-ups, disabling the local scanning has NO effect on the pegged client CPU--there is something else afoot. Your suggestion that scanning is unwanted at both the client and server level is unwise on several counts, starting with the scenario where the client has configured access to a non-Exchange POP server. And in the MAPI-scanning scenario, MS acknowledges that a server under extreme load puts higher priority on delivery than scanning, so unscanned messages can reach the client. If there's nothing scanning at the client level, you're in trouble, needlessly. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch It doesn't reduce the overhead because the Exchange-based is trying to scan every piece of mail before it gets to the client. In the case of a synch, you are dumping massive amounts of e-mail to a local .ost file. If you have both Exchange and client AV software fighting to get to the same e-mails, guaranteed the Exchange side is going to win, at the expense of the client. It could also depend on the type of AV that is on the server, i.e. is it MAPI-based scanning, or AVAPI. I still don't think I would recommend running Exchange AV on both the server and client, if nothing else, than for the potential to cause problems. Call your Exchange AV vendor and see what they say. You may just be getting lucky. Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:18 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: FW: 100% CPU when Synch I'm not sure I buy this analysis...if a LOCAL virus-scanning utility is scanning email hosted on an Exchange system that also has virus software active, the ability of the client machine to request the next item for synchronization is REDUCED by the local overhead of scanning the item. If anything, the local scanning REDUCES the load on the Exchange server by limiting the rate at which the clients can task the server. We run local and server-based Exchange anti-virus software simultaneously, and have seen none of the problems mentioned. I suggest the problem lies elsewhere, and the original comment that ...a FEW of these (clients) are pegging the CPU is your clue. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch If you have AV on your Exchange server as well, turn that option off on the clients. Think of it this way. Your Exchange AV program and your desktop AV (NAV-CE) are basically fighting to see who gets to scan the e-mail. Whoever gets to it first locks it and the other one can't get to it. Normally, the Exchange AV program will win. Hence, you have problems on your desktops. Turn it off on the client side, and I bet your problems will go away. It's understandable to want to have it running - heck, our Security team wanted us to turn it on, until we explained to them the hurt it could cause. Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: MHR(Michael Ross) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch Yes, with the Outloook\exchange option... -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch With the Exchange/Outlook add-on or no? Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: MHR(Michael Ross) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:50 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch could be.. we are using NAV CE on all the clients... -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 11:48 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch Aunty Virus? William Lefkovics, MCSE, A+ --- Why just ride, when you can fly? http://www.airborne.net --- Rent this space: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: MHR(Michael Ross) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 9:46 AM To: MS
RE: 100% CPU when Synch
I believe we're all free to counter bad advice. And I gave several suggestions, here and offline. I seriously doubt that there is a single AV vendor who makes client- and server-end AV products who says they shouldn't be used simultaneously. Not allowing POP access doesn't prevent the user from configuring it anyway--it's quite easy. Please don't get upset when you make a questionable blanket statement based upon reasons you can't recall, and someone objects. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:56 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. I will admit that I don't always present things in a matter which explains every nit-picking detail. I do know that it was explained to me some time ago exactly why we do not enable client-based Exchange AV here and while I can't remember every single detail, I do know there were valid reasons presented that stated why we would not employ this feature. I still pose the question to you of have you spoken to your Exchange AV vendor and asked them about having both server and client side scanning simultaneously? You never answered me. I don't know why you feel a burning desire to prove your overwhelming knowledge about this subject, and try and prove that I don't know what I am talking about - don't know if you noticed, but I'm not the only one that suggested disabling antivirus on the client. Or were you too busy thinking of a retort to my comments? I did notice that disabling it had no effect. I also made some other suggestions, or didn't you notice those either? I haven't seen any suggestions come out of your mouth (or keyboard, as it were). Your comment about a need for client-based Exchange AV is relevant when dealing with non-Exchange POP3 access. I agree with that. We don't allow POP access because of this, and other security reasons. The MAPI scenario, while acknowledged to by MS, I have never seen happen in a real-life scenario. Have you? We still use MAPI-based scanning, and process a LOT of mail, and this scenario has never happened to us. Then again, if you buy cheap AV software, you may be more at risk. None of us here are too worried about it. Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch The server and client don't fight for the messages--the client tells the server to send a message, the server sends it (whether the server first scans it or not is irrelevant) and the client then scans it. The more CPU cycles spent scanning by the client, the less cycles are available to request the next message, reducing the server load. As you've seen from the follow-ups, disabling the local scanning has NO effect on the pegged client CPU--there is something else afoot. Your suggestion that scanning is unwanted at both the client and server level is unwise on several counts, starting with the scenario where the client has configured access to a non-Exchange POP server. And in the MAPI-scanning scenario, MS acknowledges that a server under extreme load puts higher priority on delivery than scanning, so unscanned messages can reach the client. If there's nothing scanning at the client level, you're in trouble, needlessly. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch It doesn't reduce the overhead because the Exchange-based is trying to scan every piece of mail before it gets to the client. In the case of a synch, you are dumping massive amounts of e-mail to a local .ost file. If you have both Exchange and client AV software fighting to get to the same e-mails, guaranteed the Exchange side is going to win, at the expense of the client. It could also depend on the type of AV that is on the server, i.e. is it MAPI-based scanning, or AVAPI. I still don't think I would recommend running Exchange AV on both the server and client, if nothing else, than for the potential to cause problems. Call your Exchange AV vendor and see what they say. You may just be getting lucky. Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:18 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: FW: 100% CPU when Synch I'm not sure I buy this analysis...if a LOCAL virus-scanning utility is scanning email hosted on an Exchange system that also has virus software active, the ability of the client machine to request the next item for synchronization is REDUCED by the local overhead of scanning the item. If anything, the local scanning
RE: 100% CPU when Synch
Preventing and not allowing are different indeed. And I'll bet that your site doesn't disable local virus scanning just because you block the POP ports. -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 6:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch Not allowing POP access doesn't prevent the user from configuring it anyway If it doesn't, then you're preventing it wrong ;) William Lefkovics, MCSE, A+ --- Why just ride, when you can fly? http://www.airborne.net --- Rent this space: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch I believe we're all free to counter bad advice. And I gave several suggestions, here and offline. I seriously doubt that there is a single AV vendor who makes client- and server-end AV products who says they shouldn't be used simultaneously. Not allowing POP access doesn't prevent the user from configuring it anyway--it's quite easy. Please don't get upset when you make a questionable blanket statement based upon reasons you can't recall, and someone objects. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:56 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. I will admit that I don't always present things in a matter which explains every nit-picking detail. I do know that it was explained to me some time ago exactly why we do not enable client-based Exchange AV here and while I can't remember every single detail, I do know there were valid reasons presented that stated why we would not employ this feature. I still pose the question to you of have you spoken to your Exchange AV vendor and asked them about having both server and client side scanning simultaneously? You never answered me. I don't know why you feel a burning desire to prove your overwhelming knowledge about this subject, and try and prove that I don't know what I am talking about - don't know if you noticed, but I'm not the only one that suggested disabling antivirus on the client. Or were you too busy thinking of a retort to my comments? I did notice that disabling it had no effect. I also made some other suggestions, or didn't you notice those either? I haven't seen any suggestions come out of your mouth (or keyboard, as it were). Your comment about a need for client-based Exchange AV is relevant when dealing with non-Exchange POP3 access. I agree with that. We don't allow POP access because of this, and other security reasons. The MAPI scenario, while acknowledged to by MS, I have never seen happen in a real-life scenario. Have you? We still use MAPI-based scanning, and process a LOT of mail, and this scenario has never happened to us. Then again, if you buy cheap AV software, you may be more at risk. None of us here are too worried about it. Ben Winzenz, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:13 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch The server and client don't fight for the messages--the client tells the server to send a message, the server sends it (whether the server first scans it or not is irrelevant) and the client then scans it. The more CPU cycles spent scanning by the client, the less cycles are available to request the next message, reducing the server load. As you've seen from the follow-ups, disabling the local scanning has NO effect on the pegged client CPU--there is something else afoot. Your suggestion that scanning is unwanted at both the client and server level is unwise on several counts, starting with the scenario where the client has configured access to a non-Exchange POP server. And in the MAPI-scanning scenario, MS acknowledges that a server under extreme load puts higher priority on delivery than scanning, so unscanned messages can reach the client. If there's nothing scanning at the client level, you're in trouble, needlessly. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 100% CPU when Synch It doesn't reduce the overhead because the Exchange-based is trying to scan every piece of mail before it gets to the client. In the case of a synch, you are dumping massive amounts of e-mail to a local .ost file. If you have both Exchange and client AV software fighting to get to the same e-mails, guaranteed the Exchange side is going to win, at the expense of the client. It could also depend on the type of AV
FW: Bulk mail, legal issue
BULK mail is a legal USPS service classification, so I'll assume you mean SPAM Unfortunately, the federal laws seem to only explicitly apply to unwanted phone/fax solicitations, and not to email SPAM. Some states (Washington I believe) have passed specific anti-email-SPAM laws, but as a rule the stick with which you an smack these guys is pretty small. I like to call their 800-lines and when the shiny-suited salesman answers, I ask him to hold for a minute while I get the order. Then I go on vacation. -Original Message- From: Joe Irvine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Bulk mail, legal issue If it is unsolicited, possibly... check the anti-SPAM laws. Thanks! Joe Irvine http://www.tbopayroll.com/ 609-597-1155 -Original Message- From: Leon Raskin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Bulk mail, legal issue Is anyone know---bulk mail is it legal. Can we take any legal actions against bulk mail sender? TIA, Bigll List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Invalid Page Fault
If you've reinstalled/patched OL98 the try loading/minimizing another application (IE perhaps) prior to OL98. If you still get the fault, post the relevant module and addresses here. -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:06 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Invalid Page Fault Yes this is the client side when trying to open Outlook. Mike -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 11:56 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Invalid Page Fault This is client-side, right? William -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:43 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Invalid Page Fault Outlook 98, Exchange 5.5 SP4 I have a client that keeps getting an invalid page fault when she tries to log in. She doesn't make it pass the Outlook 98 screen splash. It chugs along for about 3-4 seconds and then the invalid page fault message appears. I have used the article Q182001 on Microsoft, but none of these options work. Any ideas would be appreciated. Mike Mitchell Systems eMAIL Administrator Alverno Information Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] (317) 532-7800 ext. 6211 List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: IMPORTANT Realy Problem 300 Mails per minute
Q193922 Q199656 and many others at: http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/ToolsTestEmail.html -Original Message- From: BOERO MANSILLA Roberto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 7:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: IMPORTANT Realy Problem 300 Mails per minute Importance: High Hi all. I am having a little problem, my servers are been used to relay spamming mail, can anyone tell how to fix that, or a link where i can get an idea what to do? thanks best regards List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Learning material
Of course. And it's still possible to own a machine w/o Office, AOL, and a vendor's self-serving wallpaper and spyware. But the art of navigating a #2 Phillips is fading fast outside the circle of Athlon Atheists. -Original Message- From: Ellery July [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 12:40 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material Do people actually still build their own PC's? ellery -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 11:16 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material And since all you need is a PC, why don't you start out by building you're own pc. It's a great place to start on your path to knowledge. Regards, Sean Martin, MCSE Network Administrator Ribelin Lowell Company Insurance Brokers, Inc. 3111 C Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ph: (907) 561-1250 Fax: (907) 561-4315 Cell: (907) 229-0885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material It's the way to learn - why spend thousands on a course, when you can setup 2 pc's, basic networking, learn a new O/S and a New Exchange Product! Worked for me. Enjoy it! Simon Weaver NT Domain Administrator Ext. 5544 Tel: 02392-705544 (Direct Dial) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jolley Lee @Consult [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 October 2001 11:56:AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material I've got some an old hub I can use. The only cost I will have is a PC to be my server. It's a good excuse for me to learn W2K server aswell. I'm looking forward to setting this up now. -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 October 2001 11:36 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material There you go :) 10MB is fine for what you need - do a swap! Simon Weaver NT Domain Administrator Ext. 5544 Tel: 02392-705544 (Direct Dial) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ropiak Steve - NAO Florence Office Exchange and Bar Code Admn. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 October 2001 11:35:AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material Yeah, I've got a whole bunch of 4 and 5 port 10 MB hubs kicking around after we upgraded everything to 100 MB switches. We could work out a trade. mit freundlichen Grüßen, Best Regards, Steve Ropiak ZF Group NAO CERT, Exchange and Bar Code Administrator -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:31 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material Lee Actually, its really easy - you could use a cross-over cable and connect to the 2 PC's, or simply get a small 4-port hub, network cables and just attach 2 Pc's and install NT / Win2k Server. For test reasons, it's the way to start, especially if you cannot justify the cost of a server (Not everyone can!) If you need any help, please let me know Simon Weaver NT Domain Administrator Ext. 5544 Tel: 02392-705544 (Direct Dial) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jolley Lee @Consult [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 October 2001 11:23:AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material Thanks to you both, I will keep listening to this list and hopefully manage to make myself a small network to learn from. I've never thought of making a network before but I really like the sound of it. Thanks again. Lee -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 October 2001 11:20 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material Lee / Tim, What I have done is setup a test lab, using several servers, and 2 PC's and install / configure the products I wish to learn. I also do this with help from books for the product, TechNet, online help and Microsoft White papers! I am learning new things about exchange all the time (especially 2k), and this list is on most occasions helpful and provide good insight. But there is nothing better than getting hands on experience yourself. Even if you cannot afford some servers, just network 2 PC's and play around! Regards Simon Weaver NT Domain Administrator Ext. 5544 Tel: 02392-705544 (Direct Dial) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Boswell Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 October 2001 11:10:AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Learning material monitoring this list is pretty good learning material...but it's all pretty useless and boring unless you can set yourself a network up with an exchange server. When I was learning (well, when I started...If you've finished learning, why are you here?) I set one up at home...all the users were either me, my girlfriend, or my cat, so if I crashed it in the name of education it wasn't a big deal.
RE: Server sizing
We easily run 150 users per Exchange server with on Dell 2300 (P400/256MB/HW-RAID5) with average utilization below 20%, meaning that you can run 30 users on darn near anything that is considered a low-level server. Just check the list FAQ for suggestions on disk allocation and virus software. -Original Message- From: Jonathan K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:03 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Server sizing I just need some suggestions on server sizing and configuration. I am new to using Exchange and I want to verify/confirm some information and outside vendor is giving me. I have about 30 users that I want to put on exchange 2k. I need to determine the server hardware config. (ie. hard drive space, cpu, etc.). Thanks everyone for all your help. JK List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: SuperCache
NT already caches disk I/Os. Add memory if you want to maximize speed on a P450 -- ram is cheap. -Original Message- From: Diane Beckham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:35 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: SuperCache Has anyone used this program (SuperCache) on their Exchange Server or SQL Server? I wonder if it would help on a IIS server? My exchange server is just a 450Mhz PC with 256MB of RAM (Exchange 5.5 SP4, NT 4.0 SP6a) with about 70 users. I can use all the speed I can cheaply find :-) TIA, Diane List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260
You need FoneSync software http://www.fonesync.com/ and a compatible IRDA infrared adapter on the sync'ing host -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 1:34 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 Well I was going from the advice of my ATT Customer Care Rep. that it's something that 'might' be available from an electronics store, but ATT doesn't carry anything similar. Regards, Sean Martin, MCSE Network Administrator Ribelin Lowell Company Insurance Brokers, Inc. 3111 C Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ph: (907) 561-1250 Fax: (907) 561-4315 Cell: (907) 229-0885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:25 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 ATT? If they have a store in your area, Ill bet you could pick one up there. -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:20 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 Ok I know this has nothing to do with Exchange. However, I do plan on using this phone for receiving SMS messages sent by Servers Alive. Anyway, my current Nokia 8260 has been giving me problems, so ATT has sent me another one. Of course they only sent me the shell, and I have to use my existing battery. I have close to 200 phone numbers on my current phone and would rather not transfer them manually. I've heard that there's a cable you can purchase to sync two identical phones but have been able to find one near me. Anyone have any ideas where I could find such a life saving device? Regards, Sean Martin, MCSE Network Administrator Ribelin Lowell Company Insurance Brokers, Inc. 3111 C Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ph: (907) 561-1250 Fax: (907) 561-4315 Cell: (907) 229-0885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] DO NOT read, copy or disseminate this communication unless you are the intended addressee. This e-mail communication contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please call us immediately at (907) 561-1250 and ask to speak to the sender of the communication. Also, please e-mail the sender and notify the sender immediately that you have received the communication in error. List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm DO NOT read, copy or disseminate this communication unless you are the intended addressee. This e-mail communication contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please call us immediately at (907) 561-1250 and ask to speak to the sender of the communication. Also, please e-mail the sender and notify the sender immediately that you have received the communication in error. List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260
Some of these Nokia babies do not have accessible serial ports, hence the IRDA need. I believe (but will not swear) that the 82x0 series (internal antenna) is sans serial. -Original Message- From: Drew Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 3:29 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 Don't need the IRDA. Fonesync has custom cables for all makes of phones as well that plug into the serial port. Drew Sanders Allpak Container, Inc. Trojan Lithograph, Inc. www.allpak.com www.trojanlitho.com ___ -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:46 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 You need FoneSync software http://www.fonesync.com/ and a compatible IRDA infrared adapter on the sync'ing host -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 1:34 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 Well I was going from the advice of my ATT Customer Care Rep. that it's something that 'might' be available from an electronics store, but ATT doesn't carry anything similar. Regards, Sean Martin, MCSE Network Administrator Ribelin Lowell Company Insurance Brokers, Inc. 3111 C Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ph: (907) 561-1250 Fax: (907) 561-4315 Cell: (907) 229-0885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 9:25 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 ATT? If they have a store in your area, Ill bet you could pick one up there. -Original Message- From: Sean Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 10:20 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Way OT: Syncing Nokia 8260 Ok I know this has nothing to do with Exchange. However, I do plan on using this phone for receiving SMS messages sent by Servers Alive. Anyway, my current Nokia 8260 has been giving me problems, so ATT has sent me another one. Of course they only sent me the shell, and I have to use my existing battery. I have close to 200 phone numbers on my current phone and would rather not transfer them manually. I've heard that there's a cable you can purchase to sync two identical phones but have been able to find one near me. Anyone have any ideas where I could find such a life saving device? Regards, Sean Martin, MCSE Network Administrator Ribelin Lowell Company Insurance Brokers, Inc. 3111 C Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Ph: (907) 561-1250 Fax: (907) 561-4315 Cell: (907) 229-0885 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] DO NOT read, copy or disseminate this communication unless you are the intended addressee. This e-mail communication contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please call us immediately at (907) 561-1250 and ask to speak to the sender of the communication. Also, please e-mail the sender and notify the sender immediately that you have received the communication in error. List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm DO NOT read, copy or disseminate this communication unless you are the intended addressee. This e-mail communication contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please call us immediately at (907) 561-1250 and ask to speak to the sender of the communication. Also, please e-mail the sender and notify the sender immediately that you have received the communication in error. List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: 120 day trial
http://www.u-tools.com/UTools/UDeploy.asp -Original Message- From: Jonathan K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:11 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: 120 day trial Does anyone know of a way to upgrade the 120 trial of exchange without reinstalling it? List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
FW: 120 day trial
Forgot to include the info that these guys have the NFR fix for NT/W2K, and would be a likely source for a comparable Exchange fix. If it exists -- chat with them -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:06 AM To: 'MS-Exchange Admin Issues' Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: 120 day trial http://www.u-tools.com/UTools/UDeploy.asp -Original Message- From: Jonathan K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:11 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: 120 day trial Does anyone know of a way to upgrade the 120 trial of exchange without reinstalling it? List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
RE: 120 day trial
I was suggesting that the company that had a fix for the same issue on NT/W2K evals (which does work) might have a fix for the equivalent Exchange issue. Or they might know who does. A subsequent post makes it clear that an over-the-top Exchange Enterprise install will convert the eval to a non-limited Enterprise (NOT standard) installation. It is possible to detect ALL of the differences between an eval and licensed installation of anything MS makes, so there is no reason for a knee-jerk reaction to a 3rd-party product. In fact, I suggest that everyone support the companies that develop these products, while said companies still exist. The downside of an all-Microsoft bias is an all-Microsoft world -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:57 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 120 day trial I'll let Jeff answer that. Myself, I'd want my deployment to be fully Microsoft supported. -Original Message- From: Jonathan K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 120 day trial I believe that it does convert the enterprise version to standard. I was hoping that maybe I could edit the reg key with the s/n number and put in my real license version key and hopefully all will be well? -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:42 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 120 day trial What a great way to start a long term exchange deployment. Does it convert the Enterprise version to standard, too? William -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:06 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: 120 day trial http://www.u-tools.com/UTools/UDeploy.asp -Original Message- From: Jonathan K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 10:11 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: 120 day trial Does anyone know of a way to upgrade the 120 trial of exchange without reinstalling it? List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm
