I've managed to work out what it is. IS = Information store, NJE is concerned with
logical units and SNA. Presumably isnje joins the two. If it couldn't run for some
reason - which is what happened yesterday - SNA won't work with exchange, which in
turn means the connection services for PROFS
Hi,
I have been following the KB article Q317680 to create a cutom
disclaimer. It says you need to install the SDK to be able to register
the Event sink and you get the tools to do this when installing the
Exchange SDK. I have installed the SDK Tools and not a script in sight
that will help me!
And you're not buying core CALs why?
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com]
Sent:
That probably will never bounce - try using a real from address.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
From: Ed Esgro
That would work, yes. Its not a good design, but assuming you have DNS
configured correctly, it should work.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original
That's why its best to use the alias for the initial OWA login screen.
That's guaranteed unique at least.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
-Original Message-
Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment
creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to
mark that folder to be synchronized?
Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in
synchronization
Thanks
...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder'
Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround
thanks
-Original Message-
From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange
Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Working Offline
Am I
Well, if they are offline, how are they going to access the other folder?
You can always create groups for offline synch, but you still have to add
any newly created folder to that group if you want it included.
-Original Message-
From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange
1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available
offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline,
you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new
folders or subfolders are created.
2) no, you will not have access to other
Thanks for the response Roger.
So what are the possible pitfalls of this design; e.g performance, etc.?
By DNS configured correctly you mean the public DNS MX records, right
or are you talking about internal one too?
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad
Thanks Ed, I just wanted to know if it would work.
If by headaches you mean performance issues, they already know and willing
to accept it.
Unless there'll be other issues as well.
--Alex
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002
Not guaranteed to be unique or unambiguous.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 11/1/2002 6:34 AM
Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message
That's why its best to use the alias for the initial OWA login screen.
That's guaranteed
Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers,
and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server,
seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work
offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins.
They basically open each
We have a similar setup... 40% of my users work at other locations and use
offline folders to improve Outlook performance. We also auto synch their
folders. We have configured Outlook to ask the user whether they want to
work offline or connect when Outlook starts, so if they are interested in
If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they
can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough
user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ.
We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL
Hello all,
I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a
grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the
fact that mail is still flowing.
Here is my setup:
I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these
Hello!
Is anyone using MessagLab's Managed Email security service now? Or have
you used the service in the past? If so, can you share you experience
with their service? Good or bad? Our management is interested in using
them to catch viruses and filter SPAM emails. Of course, this would be
Um... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the firewall?
And why are you using lmhost to connect to the Exchange server?
Drew Nicholson
Technical Writer
Network Engineer
LAN Manager
RapidApp
312-372-7188 (work)
312-543-0008 (cell)
Born To Edit
-Original Message-
From: Tener, Richard
This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook.
Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K
though.
- Original Message -
From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01,
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has
anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent?
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM
Subject: X.400 issues
So if you, say, have 20 users in a remote office, using a high estimate,
they would need a total of 160K for outlook. In that scenario, why bother
with offline folders and forcing users to synchronize? Even our remote
dialup users still use outlook online for the added functionality.
James
But SMTP addresses are (unique at least) and work quite well in OWA.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com]
Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:35 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: X.400 issues
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network
Yes I have wins set up on the ras server.
-Original Message-
From: Allan Johnson [mailto:allan;teaminfo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:22 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
OK confusion and headache aside from trying to visualize your environment
from
Brian,
We have been using the anti-virus service since late 1999, and it is very good. We
have had no infected messages into our Exchange system in that time. We have about 150
recipient addresses and typically 20 to 30 messages are intercepted per week. Cost is
an issue at £1 per e-mail
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ?
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ?
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or
guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective
you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the
number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which
I do get 57/289/1290/9202 on one of the other remote servers. FYI: these 2
servers that I am having all the issues with are both on the West Coast
while the hub is on the East Coast.
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01,
That'll all change with Outlook 11 one hopes. Perhaps a 2k per user limit
will be sufficient.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth
Because total bandwidth and available bandwidth are two entirely different
animals.
-Original Message-
From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
So if you, say, have 20 users in a remote office, using a
And no one has mentioned latency... Latency can have a huge impact on
network performance. Bandwidth is only part of the equation.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these
internal emails.
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
No, however I
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service
The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity
(X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19
34](12)
Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category:
This is all internal. The MSKB articles point to a mis-configured firewall
but there are no firewalls involved. Thus why I am so stumped. I've been
banging on this for 2 weeks now.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:03
When I had similar issues between the core Exchange servers in Houston and a
remote one in Italy, that the queues in the MTAs would bunch up behind a
large message. After extensive Exchange troubleshooting (in vain) it
turned out we had a dirty WAN circuit - when that was replaced mail flow
Interesting article on one persons problems with getting listed on a
RBL:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2896281,00.h
tml
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Darcy Adams
Sent: Wednesday, October
If you've taken the steps described in Q243632, then the next most likely
issue is available bandwidth as mentioned in Q194589.
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Event ID 57:
I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it.
I've found it on the MS web site, but can find no definitive cost
information. They tell you it covers Win2k Server, Exchange, SMS and
Sharepoint, but then when you go to try and find pricing information, they
want you to pick one.
I never heard of one. What's the approx cost?
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it.
I've
URL?
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it.
I've found it on the MS web site, but can
The core CAL has replaced the BackOffice CAL.
http://www.microsoft.com/backofficeserver/howtobuy/pricing/changes.asp
HTH,
(back to lurking)
~R~
--
Roger Haxton
Network Administrator
Sure-Tel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's pretty cool. I wish it covered SQL as well.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Haxton [mailto:RHaxton;suretel.net]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
The core CAL has replaced the BackOffice CAL.
Though they should be, SMTP addresses are not guaranteed to be unique,
either.
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:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On
Of course, that would be 160K avaialable bandwidth.
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:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of James Winzenz
Sent:
In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server
by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem
goes away.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
Exchange 2000/SP3I have an SMTP connector for internet mail
traffic coming off of our exchange 2000 server. Every now and then a
user sends an email to an internet address with an attachment that locks
up the connector. It just sets there retrying. This happens with
different users with
I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the
original post, sorry)
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: X.400 issues
In the X.400 connector
Any error messages? Do you have limits set. Even if it was too large it
should tell you right away.
- Original Message -
From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:57 PM
Subject: Message with attachment stopping
I cant tell you how sick I get of hearing that.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector
Any error messages? Do you have limits set.
Up the logging and see what's happening.
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:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Woodruff,
Michael
Sent:
Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if
there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic
is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having
this issue?
- Original Message -
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL
Event ID: 977 with this text is what I get
Following connector fails to connect to its target bridge head. CN=SMTP
Internet Mail Connector,CN=Connections,CN=Columbus,CN=Routing
Groups,CN=Columbus,CN=Administrative Groups,CN=Company
Directory,CN=Microsoft
Alex,
I have performed these types of migrations before. In particular for a
large 12,000 seat fast-food restaurant system composed of a number of
different email systems including 2 E55, 1 cc:Mail and 1 MS Mail systems.
Here are the main issues with these types of migrations (between 2
disparate
We have a tool to export information from GroupWise address books and
format it for import into Outlook. If you are looking for a fully
automated solution, this solution could be adapted quite easily.
If you are interested, you can contact me and we could work out how you
could utilize this tool
Does anyone know how you set up Send/Receive to sync forms in Outlook 98?
Thank you,
Alex Gonzalez
Senior Systems Administrator
Handleman Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(248) 362-4400 Ext. 4914
_
List posting FAQ:
We have agreed before, Greg. It isn't all that rare.
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:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
I am not so sure it is a network issue.I have other Ex servers in different
sites on the other end of the same T1 that are fine and do not generate
these errors.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:04 PM
To: Exchange
Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second
Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the
second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a
mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I
select browse
Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy.
Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client
can only see one.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups
Sent: Friday,
I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that
I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox
default to the new public folder store that I created.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org]
Only the first public folder tree, also known as the MAPI public folder
tree, is visible through Outlook.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder
store that I created.
Using what client? Outlook will not see it.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Thanks I understand now. Well for now they will be using OWA. What is
happening is that in Exchange System Manager when I go to mailbox
properties, under Default Public Store and click on browse I don't see
the new public folder I just created.
Thanks Ed
Saul
-Original Message-
From:
I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion
and on page 275 it shows I can select another public folder as default
but I don't see that on my ESM. Any ideas?
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Newsgroups
Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:46 PM
Posted To:
That book sucks.
-Original Message-
From: Newsgroups [mailto:Newsgroups;henwoodenergy.com]
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion
and on page 275 it shows I can select another public
So are you saying that I can't associate it?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com]
Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:06 PM
Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups
Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
Subject: RE: Associate a
Hi all.
I have this user who is running Outlook 2000.
Somehow his Drafts folder got moved and became a subfolder of Inbox.
And once in a while a message appears in the Drafts folder. The subject of the message
is 2. And the message has an attachment - the attached file is the user's PST file
Oh yeah, I already ran Outlook.exe /ResetFolders
That helped to put the Drafts back. Now I need to wait and see whether that big
message pops in again.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Is this a virus?
There's only 1 MAPI TLH, you can create several non-MAPI TLH trees if you'd
like, but Outlook clients only see the first. Q258509
That book sucks.
So are you saying that I can't associate it?
No, I'm saying you should buy a book which sucks less.
I am sorry if I don't understand.Why is the browse button in the
default public folder for a mailbox there for? Our client is going to
use OWA. Can't I just have the users in the new mailbox see only the
new public folder?
Again sorry
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff
I'm not sure where the browse button you are referring to exists, but I'll
thow out a WAG that it's to specify which instance of the MAPI TLH the
mailbox should access (which would only be relavent in multiserver
environments and would still point to just a particular replica of the same
TLH).
73 matches
Mail list logo
