RE: Reported emails not available after STM recreation and EDB corruption

Thank you Jeffrey I guessed that it were valid pointers pointing to a missing item, just didn't know how to get rid of them. Will run this tonight, as I can't take the production system down during the day. Regards Sander -Original Message- From: Jeffrey A. Beckham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE

RE: Reported emails not available after STM recreation and EDB corruption

You have logical corruption now because all of the pointers in the EDB file that were pointing to the STM are no longer valid. Run isinteg to fix logical corruption. Run it until you get 0 errors, 0 warnings, and 0 fixes or the same results twice. Isinteg -s -fix -test alltests Jeff Beckham

Reported emails not available after STM recreation and EDB corruption

Good morning all Exchange 2000 SP1. I had a corruption on one of my EDB files and had to recreate the STM file. At the time it looked like no mail was lost, but alas, this was not true. Outlook now still reports mail items that can't be opened. Error: "Can not open this item" Checked Event logs -

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

I hope you guys feel better. It must be nice to know everything, and be ready to jump on anyone who asks for help. I guess that makes you feel really big. You know guys, I didn't ask for a blueprint. I have found from experience with MS that there are sometimes many different ways to accomplis

RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups

I was just using HRO as an example. I'm on a military base and we usually have one global group for each unit that contains all the members of the unit for the dissemination of unit-specific information. Then we create a group for each section of the unit and place the appropriate members into t

RE: RECALL: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

The Outlook programmers need to work on they're [1] grammar. [1] Hi Les! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ely, Don Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 6:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RECALL: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to

RECALL: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

Andy David would like to "recall" this message. Please disregard Andy's previous message as it did not bear the desired intent. Thank you, we now return to you to the regularly schedule program. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 20

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

Ok, on that note I would like to recall my message then. :) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K I was considering my usual "consultin

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

I was considering my usual "consulting engagement" rant, but the original post just asked for resources, and I thought that not to be such an unreasonable request. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original M

RE: Standard to Enterprise Edition Problem

Any SNMP /AV/ Other 3rd party services running? -Original Message- From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Standard to Enterprise Edition Problem I am trying to update an Exchange 5.5 SP4 standard edition serv

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

Hi, I'm building an add-on for my kitchen. Ive looked a number of documents on how to do this but I'm still not clear what is the best approach. -Original Message- From: Jim Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE:

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

And I'll share too... http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/exchange/Default.asp -Original Message- From: Jim Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Guidance for Upgrade

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

Thanks for sharing Ed. Best Regards, JMU Jim Underwood -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 10:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K There are plenty of them on TechNet. Ha

Standard to Enterprise Edition Problem

I am trying to update an Exchange 5.5 SP4 standard edition server to 5.5 Enterprise Edition. Per the KB, I am running setup and choosing "Reinstall". When it gets to the part about "updating services and registry", I get the following error message: "The command lodctr dsactrs.ini failed, return

RE: Automatic Email Software

You could try mapisend, a utility from Microsoft and I use to check a paranoids clients email twice daily. -Original Message- From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 25 June 2002 6:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Automatic Email Software Ahhh,

RE: E2K - Pop3

yep Yours, Julian Stone Exchange 2000 Consultant This message sent from Exchange 2000 SP3 build 6249.1 Netstore - Europe's Leading Application Service Provider Tel: +44 (0) 1344 444349 Mobile: +44 (0) 7710 122 312 Fax: +44 (0) 207 681 1238 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LOCATION: <

RE: E2K - Pop3

You've found that to work for a POP client? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Julian Stone Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002

RE: E2K - Pop3

Try the full user logon name [EMAIL PROTECTED] e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yours, Julian Stone Exchange 2000 Consultant This message sent from Exchange 2000 SP3 build 6249.1 Netstore - Europe's Leading Application Service Provider Tel: +44 (0) 1344 444349 Mobile: +44 (0) 7710 122 312 Fax: +44 (0

RE: E2K - Pop3

Valid combinations are: domain\user_id (when mailbox_alias = user_ID) domain/user_id (ditto) domain\user_id\mailbox_alias domain/user_id/mailbox_alias Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message-

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

Psychometrics, psychometrics, psychometrics!!! > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - > the most pra ctical solution > > >

RE: E2K - Pop3

I figured out what the problem was. I was messing around earlier today with adsiedit chaning the format of the display names to lastname, firstname. When I made that change it caused all new user's alias's to be lastname\, firstname so you can see the problem there. I removed the changes tha

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

So you guys don't put bedpans on the heads of cadavers and race them around the office? Geez, what do you do for fun then? > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

It was moider, I tell ya!!! > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - > the most pra ctical solution > > > Damnit Quincy, just a

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

Ok... so send us some sample exam questions then. *Sheesh* I'd think working for the former would be much more fun. > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail message

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the mostpra ctical solution

Damnit Quincy, just answer my question. -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution We're not the National Boar

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

We're not the National Board of "Medical Examiners", but the National Board of Medical Examiners. There's a difference ;) > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 5:05 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-m

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

Shouldn't you be sending us gross autopsy photos or something? Get to work man! > -Original Message- > From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:04 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most p

Exchange Server and virus protection - WAS RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMI NG TOO MUCH MEMORY

I remember my days with using McAfee products as hellish! Two years ago I dropped McAfee in favour of the Sophos Antivirus suite. It certainly isn't nearly as polished (pretty) as McAfee but it sure is stable and requires less memory overhead than most or all other alternatives. After runnin

RE: E2K - Pop3

It should be domain\NT_ID\mailbox_alias > -Original Message- > From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2K - Pop3 > > no...username although I have tried: > > username > domain\username > domain/us

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

You talk purty. > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:10 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - > the most pra ctical solution > > > I disagree entirely. Michael i

RE: E2K - Pop3

If it responded differently for invalid usernames, that'd be a boon for hackers. > -Original Message- > From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2K - Pop3 > > nice...so even if it is telling me that

RE: E2K - Pop3

no...username although I have tried: username domain\username domain/username domain\username\display name -Original Message- From: Mood, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K - Pop3 Does the Pop3 account name

RE: E2K - Pop3

nice...so even if it is telling me that the user is ok, it may not be. Then it may be a problem of exchange not getting the changes of the newly created account yet. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:50 PM To: Exchange Dis

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

Nope, it's not the Dell. I have one and don't have those issues either... :P -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging. Haven't seen that and I'm

RE: E2K - Pop3

Does the Pop3 account name = Exchange alias ? -Original Message- From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K - Pop3 Silly little problem with authenticating to my E2K server through a POP3 connection. I hav

RE: E2K - Pop3

Exchange's POP3 will respond OK to a username of hubnlkjtenlkjbt. > -Original Message- > From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: E2K - Pop3 > > haven't tried that, I don't have any other pop clients

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees

There are certainly situations in which an inbox rule may be appropriate. I think Arch's original post in this thread mentioned something about them in fact. But for $vbc a rules wizard solution does have a few scalability issues. Not everyone is as big or wildly successful as Getty Images though.

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

Ok Thanks, I did update to the latest COM+ engine version. Wonder if there are some incompatibilities. -Original Message- From: Gary Barnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

RE: E2K - Pop3

that didn't work either -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 4:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K - Pop3 Are you entering his username in the proper format? (domain\nt_id\mailbox_alias) > -Original Message

RE: E2K - Pop3

haven't tried that, I don't have any other pop clients setup that way and they're working fine and since I could telnet to the server and exchange recognizes the username I didn't think that would make any difference...we'll give it a try though -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [m

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees

Uh - Shawn. . . think again about your rule. Besides taking a bit more effort to implement, your rule *still* requires the server to accept the mail. And, no, as the admin you don't have to see all the nondeliverable stuff if you don't want to. Go to your IMS and take a look at the options fo

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees

As it should? And where is it written that Exchange should bounce mail? Your method sounds like an administrative nightmare to me. An acronym can be a word formed from the initial letters of a name, so DL is a legitimate acronym. -Original Message- From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PR

RE: E2K - Pop3

Are you entering his username in the proper format? (domain\nt_id\mailbox_alias) > -Original Message- > From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: E2K - Pop3 > > Silly little problem with authenticating to

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees

> I just recently explained a much better way of 'killing' those unwanted > messages by way of a server based rule. > As I mentioned making a DL forces Exchange to accept the messages as > legitimate mail rather than bouncing them, as it should. I think the definition of 'much better' is very muc

E2K - Pop3

Silly little problem with authenticating to my E2K server through a POP3 connection. I have a user who can log into the network, check his mail through outlook when connected to the network and can also log into his inbox through OWA. When I configured his outlook client on his laptop to conne

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

[2nd attempt; first was user error.] I saw this a lot when I was working on a com addin. Failing to set objects to nothing at exit will cause the app to keep running. I would check for a custom vbaproject.otm or any com addins. --Gary -Original Message- From: Anthony L. Sollars [mai

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

I saw this a lot when I was working on a com addin. Failing to set objects to nothing at exit will cause the -Original Message- From: Anthony L. Sollars [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook 2002 issues with process

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

Hahah, I tend to do that with MS products occasionally. I so love linux for this, if it's screwing up I can pop the hood and get my arms greasy and fix it. -TOny -Original Message- From: David Florea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:04 PM To: Exchange Discuss

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

No but I plan to install it -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging. Have you got some other application such as 'ActiveSync' running, which is

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees

>Subject: RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees >From: Chris Scharff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:23:08 -0500 >X-Message-Number: 35 > >Per 4, it might explain why the acronym "DL" was such a foreign concept to >him, the idea of a DL with no recipients as a solut

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

I disagree entirely. Michael is a typical dumb-ass and ascribing smart-ass stature to his comments demeans smart-asses everywhere. As for his school bully status, again... school bullies everywhere are insulted. > I really wonder about the maturity level of some of you people! I don't know what

RE: ldap enable?

thanks for the input. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 3:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: ldap enable? Neither OWA nor Outlook/MAPI use LDAP. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protect

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

I see this occasionally, no particular reason why it starts or stops. Most of the time, if I leave it for long enough it will go away. I blame it on the phase of the moon. -Original Message- From: Anthony L. Sollars [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:43 PM T

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

32k limit on rules... suppose one could go to a server side script after that however, if Jane Doe from the warehouse was subscribed to 57 joke of the week mailing lists which neither check for bounces, nor offer unsubscribe information, adding her to a black hole DL eliminates her mail withou

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

Have you got some other application such as 'ActiveSync' running, which is keeping Outlook open. Yours, Julian Stone Exchange 2000 Consultant This message sent from Exchange 2000 SP3 build 6249.1 Netstore - Europe's Leading Application Service Provider Tel: +44 (0) 1344 444349 Mobile: +44 (0

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees - the most pra ctical solution

Michael's answer is a typical smart-ass response that serves no other purpose than to intentionally humiliate the questioner. I don't believe a familiarity of initials necessarily constitutes knowledge of a subject. Would it have been so difficult for you to write, "Distribution List"?? No, I s

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

HAHHA, nice one. You wouldn't be biased now would you? IT is a weird problem, I had the same issue a week, but luckily it was time for a full rebuild. Now it still does it, hm. Doesn't start happening until after I install Pre-sp2 hotfixes for Office. I will try and reinstall office and lea

RE: ldap enable?

Neither OWA nor Outlook/MAPI use LDAP. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stevens, Dave Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:4

RE: ldap enable?

No E2K around? No, you probably don't need LDAP enabled. > -Original Message- > From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:47 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: ldap enable? > > > Ok...standing by for the blast wave. > I will try to word this

RE: Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

Haven't seen that and I'm running the same version. Maybe it's the Dell--I'm running on a Compaq Deskpro and on a Compaq Armada laptop! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PR

ldap enable?

Ok...standing by for the blast wave. I will try to word this best as possible. Exchange 5.5 (sp4) on W2k (sp2). We currently have Ldap enabled over the site (I haven't checked this setting in awhile, but I could have sworn it was disabled back when. Maybe a SP overwrote the value?) Anyways, 9

Outlook 2002 issues with process hanging.

Has anyone ever noticed this behavior from Outlook 2002, which was installed with Office XP Pro. 1. Whenever I close outlook, the process is never closed just the application GUI. I have to bring up task manager and kill the outlook process before I can re-launch outlook. Any help would be grea

RE: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

I have the patch, talked with pss today and they gave it to me, will apply tonight when everyone goes to bed and see what happens. I will reply tomorrow again depending on what happens. Avi -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2

Smtp woes

Here is my issue. I have a 2k server set up to send and receive internet mail using a smtp connector. I am running mixed mode. All my 5.5 sites send with no problem to the internet. When I try to send an email to one of our 2k routing groups (connected to the bridgehead server via routing grou

RE: Changing name of OU

Any danger? Who knows? There isn't supposed to be any problem. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Friese, Casey Sent: Wed

Re: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

Try this. http://support.microsoft.com/search/preview.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q313932 - Original Message - From: "Avi Smith-Rapaport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:54 PM Subject: RE: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

This is done in exchange admin. -Original Message- From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 26 June 2002 16:31 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Public folders delivering mail?! Is this done via the outlook client or at the 5.5 server. The issue being I have users who have folder

RE: IMC as SMTP internet gateway

If there's no $ cost to continuing AV scanning in MMS, one still might consider scanning at least the most risky file types with a secondary product. Course the maintenance $ on MMS simply for virus scanning would be just silly. > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE

RE: IMC as SMTP internet gateway

Good point. I was thinking strictly in terms of AV, but if the gateway is applying those lovely disclaimers etc etc, then obviously the need for MMS may still exist. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:05 PM To: Exchange Di

Changing name of OU

Does anyone know if there is any danger in changing the name of an OU within Windows 2000 sp2 ad and if there are any chances of this screweing up the exchange 2k sp2 users which resided in that OU? _ List posting FAQ: htt

RE: IMC as SMTP internet gateway

> couldn't you remove the need for > the separate SMTP gateway solution? That depends entirely on what the SMTP gateway solution was doing. I don't believe there's anywhere close to a 1 to 1 feature map between MMS and Sybari's Antigen, so it would depend in large part on the functionality desire

RE: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

It seems to be working now doing that internally. Cannot test externally until tonight. What does it all mean thenif it works if you just put in public but when you put in exchange it does everything but the public folders and gives that nice error. Avi -Original Message- From: k

RE: IMC as SMTP internet gateway

Yes. -Original Message- From: Brock, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IMC as SMTP internet gateway We are looking into replacing InoculateIT with Sybari Antigen. Currently we run an SMTP gateway (Tumbleweed MM

IMC as SMTP internet gateway

We are looking into replacing InoculateIT with Sybari Antigen. Currently we run an SMTP gateway (Tumbleweed MMS) that connects to the IMC of our Exchange bridgehead server. Utilizing Sybari's Antigen on the IMC, couldn't you remove the need for the separate SMTP gateway solution? Thanks for a

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

Yes, you can. In Exchange 5.5 change the permissions for "Default". In Exchange 2000 it's "Anonymous" that you'd change. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mail

RE: Catch All

I don't recall that ever being an Exchange feature. What is often requested is, "Send all mails for this domain that are not defined in Exchange to this recipient object without sending an NDR." Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Br

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

So what does your email administrator say about the issue? > -Original Message- > From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:12 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Public folders delivering mail?! > > > I checked that first but appears you cannot

Kerberos KDC with Exchange 5.5, Win2K and Veritas BackupExec

I am currently migrating some Exchange 5.5 users to some new hardware. The new system is running Exchange 5.5 SP4 on Win2k Adv Server SP2. The server is a member server in an NT 4 domain (they are not quite ready for AD here yet). I was hoping someone could clarify some confusing information in

RE: Catch All

Could be. I saw "Catch All" in the subject, so I did a Ctrl-c, Ctrl-V, Send. -Original Message- From: Mark Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch All Isn't that for all mails to a single domain going to a

RE: Catch All

Isn't that for all mails to a single domain going to a specific user? We got this a little while ago and I quote from the summary "This article describes how to create an event sink to capture all e-mail messages that are sent to a particular domain, and then direct them to a single mailb

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

I checked that first but appears you cannot disable SMTP from the client side. Would be fantastic for us but alas!! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Public folders delivering mail?

RE: In search of security fixes

Thanks, I guess I should have though of that. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: In search of security fixes You can start here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp?Lang

RE: Catch All

I don't want to. But it's a very frequently requested feature. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Tuesda

RE: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

What happens when you try to access the public folders directly, http://machinename/public ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 11:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OWA Issues No Public Fol

Re: Catch All

Trying think why you would want to implement a Catch-all script. Sounds like mail bagging. If so you would want to do that from a relay in front of Exchange should it go down. - Original Message - From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: W

Re: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

Sounds like a rights issue. But you said it works internally OK but external access is failing. And this all happened after applying SP2. I know in SP2 for E2K there is the ability to hide certain items in OWA using segmentation but I don't think that is the problem because it won't give you error

RE: Catch All

You might be right. I haven't played with it. I guess a logical extention of the script would be to look up the SMTP address in AD and skip processing if it exists. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Origina

RE: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up

Just an upgrade to sp2 can't remember if public folders showed up previously though. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OWA Issues No Public Folders Showing up Is this a new instal

Re: Catch All

But will that do what he original want to do re-route all inbound unknown recipient mail to a single mailbox. The Catch-all re-routes all mail not just the unknown. Or am I reading the Q article wrong. - Original Message - From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

Also, each public folder has permissions. You can tell each folder owner that they can restrict use of that folder themselves. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: unexplainable email header - resend

Read Internet RFC 821. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Shawn Connelly Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 7:25 AM To: Exchang

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

Ok thanks -Original Message- From: Drewery, Anthony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Public folders delivering mail?! If you want to change the current PFs you're into the realms of directory exporting, modificatio

RE: Catch All

It doesn't work that way. You can have a postmaster mailbox that gets copies of non-delivery reports, but nothing that acts as a catch-all mailbox standard in Exchange. If you want to create an event sink: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q324021&SD=MSKB&; Ed Crowley MCSE

RE: OOO Weirdness

Out of Office data is stored in hidden messages in the user's mailbox. I wonder if your unified messaging package is affecting this configuration. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From:

RE: Public Folder Move

I used ADMT to migrate the accounts, then set up the ADC, which populated the accounts with the Exchange info. I did not use ADClean. I ran the LDAP query today suggested in Q309222, the value you mention is not populated for any users. Ran into another situation today that may be related. I move

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees personalmail

Create and use a profile that logs into the mailbox. However, the advice to use an empty distribution list (group) is better. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [

RE: Move Mailbox problem

Are the servers close network-wise? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony McCarthy Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:47 PM T

RE: Guidance for Upgrade of Small Network to W2K/E2K

There are plenty of them on TechNet. Have at them. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Underwood Sent: Tuesday, June 25

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

If you want to change the current PFs you're into the realms of directory exporting, modification of the CSV file and reimporting. -Original Message- From: Drewery, Anthony Sent: 26 June 2002 16:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Public folders delivering mail?! And they each hav

RE: Public folders delivering mail?!

And they each have a public folder named similarly to their mailbox??? -Original Message- From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 26 June 2002 16:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Public folders delivering mail?! OK but I am dealing with 500 users. Is there a default setting

  1   2   >