Yeah, but I am running in AVAPI mode and the scan engine and pattern file
are current. It's getting some Bugbears but not others.
Tim
Subject: Re: ScanMail missing tricks?
From: Ray Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 09:13:31 -0700
X-Message-Number: 17
We had this
Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange
strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy
includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this
highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal
Folders containing there
Without going directly into the OST/PST discussion I would suggest to look
at the new Outlook 11 coming up on the horizon. A lot of new features have
to do with slow links.
** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with
Exchange 2003 **
--
Martin
Hi,
Exch 2k sp3 outlook 2k
As per Ed's 'never restore' method, I have set up mailbox retention on
my departing users. I gave permission to the admin account to access a
users mailbox who has departed in order to check any emails. I have
since deleted the mailbox and account within AD however
Both your DCs are GCs. Good for exchange but one of the FSMO roles (the
Infrastructure Master) does not want to be on a GC. It doesn't update if
it is run on a GC. Not sure if this applies in a single domain too.
Q1971322:
NOTE: The Infrastructure Master (IM) role should be held by a domain
Hi all,
We are a small company but spread out offices all around.
I wonder what would be a justified number of users (mailboxes) to host a exchange
server (Exchange 2K-SP3 ) in a remote office. Does anyone use MAPI client over
internet to connect to exchange server ? Are there any recommended
We traditionally change the user to the married name (at their request, of
course) then add in parenthesis their maiden name:
Paula Jones (Smith)
Tends to work well.
The only way to do what you want would be to create a second mailbox and set
the main mailbox as an alternate recipient. That's
And a new employee?
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:17 AM
To: Exchange
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that
PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that
conversion is done on the client side.
I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a
256MB pipe that gets shared
Off topic.
With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the sender we
are starting to get complaints from users who are receiving the sender
notifications messages from our ScanMail virus scanner who did not actually
send any virus. I know we can turn off the notification, but
how can a 256meg pipe be bad?
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe?
:)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that
PST's
I leave them on - it's a good indication someone is hijacking their mail
accounts.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe)
a couple of p2p servers;)
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 08:08
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe?
:)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad
Lol, yeah, even if it was a 256KB pipe, that's still 2048kbit, 2mb pipes
up and down the country, don't think I could give a toss about offline
folders ;)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 13:09
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the
application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of
bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data
center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal
applications, and
The end that's got the Exchange box ;)
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM
Try 6MB ATM[1], which is the current standard for our larger office
connectivity.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
[1] Actually, its 3MB CIR with a 6MB port speed.
-Original
Agreed. Leave em on.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I leave them on - it's a good indication someone is hijacking their mail
accounts.
We leave them off. The majority of today's virus' and Trojans are not
from who they say they are. If we see one that is legitimate on the From
address we will send a note separately.
Notifying the sender when they weren't the sender doesn't really help
them know their email was hijacked. They
I recently reconfigured our internal network from .com to .loc in advance of
our planned migration/upgrade to AD. We are running Ex 5.5 Sp4 on W2K Sp3. I
have found and issue with the SMTP header that now sent out as seen here:
Received: from challenger.creatcomp.loc (unknown[216.237.98.130]. I
Do you want to have both .com and .loc as an email address, or only
.loc? One way would be with a smart host that could rewrite your .loc to
.com on outgoing mail.
Sander
-Original Message-
From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 02:13 PM
To: Exchange
I'd suggest using a network to network VPN for the small offices - we do it
with Cisco PIX 506 firewalls, but most of our small offices are 25-40
people. Many of the $300-500 SOHO firewalls, and some of the even less
expensive ones, suppor that kind of functionality.
That also gives you a lot
The fact that you're asking for help on an incredibly well documented
process that has also been beaten to death over the 7-8 years of this lists
existance probably garnered you a response you weren't happy with.
There's this really cool document called The Exchange 5.5 Disaster Recovery
It is not the email address that I want change. Our current addressing is
[EMAIL PROTECTED].
What I am looking to change is the SMTP header that Exchange is writing. It
is now writing this based upon the internal DNS information on the Exchange
Server.
-Original Message-
From: Sander
Hi Guys,
I wonder if you can advise me on this set up i'm planning for a 15 user
company.
Existing setup:
One server with a broadband connection (512k) running NT4/Exchange
5.5/Winroute proxy and is multihomed
for the broadband connection.
Currently its used for around 15 connections for Exchange
Exch2k SP3
When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the
HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting
the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as
hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global
Catalog
Exch2k SP3
When I disable an account and hide it from the GAL the RUS stamps the
HideFromAddressList as true, but our Outlook Clients aren't reflecting
the change. If I do a preview from ESM of the Gal, it shows it as
hidden? I have restarted Outlook and pointed to a different Global
Catalog
It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing
to the correct (and valid) server?
Otherwise the only other references I can find are to problems with a
Global Catalog server. Not too many exciting KB's for the RUS.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael
Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in
the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might
need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02
The exception is if *all* the DCs are GCs, even in the case of a
multi-domain forest, the IM can be on any of them.
- Original Message -
From: Sander Van Butzelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:28 AM
Subject: RE: RUS
Both
IMO, Use a real dot com domain name for your internal network, not a .loc!
- Original Message -
From: Dave Vantine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:12 AM
Subject: Change FQDN in Ex55
I recently reconfigured our internal network
Live with it.
- Original Message -
From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:53 AM
Subject: Virus Notifications to Sender?
Off topic.
With the advent of Klez and various other viruses who spoof the
Recreate the Outlook profile?
- Original Message -
From: Rob Hackney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:24 AM
Subject: FW: Outlook prob removing old account
Hi,
Exch 2k sp3 outlook 2k
As per Ed's 'never restore' method, I have set
Yep.
Once they fix some of the bugs, Outlook 11 is the ticket.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Without going directly into the
I don't see the point of a .loc domain myself.
I think MS was recommending that in the early days, but generally, most
recommendations now are to use a real domain name for your internal network.
-Original Message-
From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09,
Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then!
In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 link back to the
main Exch Server and rarely had issues.
And we were passing cad files around all day!
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
It looks good on paper to avoid someone stealing your email domain and
spoofing your address.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
I
What prevents them from doing that with any real domain name?
- Original Message -
From: David McSpadden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:10 AM
Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
It looks good on paper to
God damn, don't talk to me about CAD files.
Were a construction company :o
Random User : Hello the system is Slow
Me : Is anyone receiving any emails?
Random User : No
Me : Have you checked with the drawing department?
And when its over a 64k ISDN line, it doesn't work to well, roll on
They won't authenicate through the real domain name servers.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
What
Four common ways the RUS can break:
These are the most common ways that the RUS can break:
1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the
servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both
entries and choose alternates, if available.
2) Inheritable
Best practices recommend otherwise:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/ad/windows2000/plan/bpaddsgn.asp
As a best practice use DNS names registered with an Internet authority in
the Active Directory namespace. Only registered names are guaranteed to be
I am not AD yet so I am only somewhat familiar with what you referenced.
I conceide your point though.
I accept my public flogging with only no regrets.
I was under the wrong understanding that if you setup an internal DNS that
was not Fully Qualified it would not
be able to be spoofed externally
Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder
is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox,
so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until
you synchronise, that means downloading the email again.
Also, what would happen
What are the odds?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Best practices recommend otherwise:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn
I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log
except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm
stuck.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Four common
100:1?
(we all know how often they happen)
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 15:49
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM
(6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
What are
I'll put $100.00 on domain.loc
- Original Message -
From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM
(6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Can I buy a vowel?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I'll put $100.00 on domain.loc
- Original Message -
From: William Lefkovics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions
clap clap clap clap clap clap
- Original Message -
From: Erik Sojka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: **NOT SPAM (ME)** Re: ** SPAM (5.50/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM
(6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Can I buy a
Good morning,
Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I
want
to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are
currently
on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5.
How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!!
Have a
Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant
service on your E2k box?
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:41
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: RUS problems
Subject: RE: RUS problems
I
Hmmm. I have some money left over. Can I get that ceramic dalmatian for
$50?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
clap clap clap clap clap clap
- Original Message -
From: Erik
Nope Not yet. I am going to reboot tonight.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant
service on your E2k box?
Neil
This isnt enough?
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/ti/ex2003intro.asp
- Original Message -
From: Mitchell Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:52 AM
Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Good point , what is the business case for email now?
-Original Message-
From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Good morning,
Surely you are laughing by now. But
Exchange won't be the expensive bit - AD will.
:)
-Original Message-
From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
Good morning,
Surely you are laughing by now. But my
The last I heard, mainstream support for 5.5 ends on Dec 31st 2003, so
that may be a good enough reason. You should have stuck with MSMail -
no need for that expensive Exchange rubbish! :-)
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: 09 June 2003
-Original Message-
From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Good morning,
Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants
to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange
2003/Outlook 2003. I
great reply
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
-Original Message-
From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment.
Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow
OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for
everyone; or so they say.
I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year,
let
Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that
Exchange2000 sp3
From a session at TechEd.
All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's
almost 80,000 mailboxes.
William
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the
benefits of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the
ability to download your mailbox to your desktop.
Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
WAN/Internet Specialist
913-339-6700 x194
-Original
Is it possible? If so how?
I have a list of contacts from an affiliated company's Exchange server in
Excal format and I need to import it. Any idea how?
Thanks Greg
_
List posting FAQ:
I have a 5.5 server whos drive c is toast. Tried getting it to boot, tried a
repair but it looks like the controller is the culprit. The server is
running NT 4.0 with sp 6a.
I have tried reviving the server but no luck. I have a full backup of
exchange and I need to get this restored onto a new
Have tried deleting the computer account then trying joining the domain?
- Matt
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Warren Mr DAC 5 SIG CMD
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Help...exchange down
I have a 5.5
I can get the new server joined to the domain with the old servers name and
IP.
-Original Message-
From: Bailey, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:RE: Help...exchange down
Have tried deleting the
- AVAPI 2.5.
It allows the AV vendors to actually delete messages containing viruses or matching
the spam filters, if enabled, rather than just modifying the content/attachments. It
also allows for stamping of a spam confidence level on messages so that users can
choose how spammy they
All,
Part of our company is interested in using this product. I would appreciate
hearing some opinions of the product- particularly the spam portion.
Thanks.
Ken Jasa
Messaging Manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ:
Show them the OWA for 2k3 and they'll, um, er, like it.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003
You don't want to know what they're doing. And its not pr0n, either.[1]
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
[1] Not anymore. He was let go a few years ago.
-Original Message-
From:
We've turned them off. I'd guess that 99% of the viruses that we receive have spoofed
sender addresses, and I don't see the benefit of hitting all those people with
incorrect virus alerts.
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003
Yes, but then I have to upgrade to OS 2003 too :) Talk about a full day
:)
You are right though, there are some very interesting things in that
list, and I probably will see what my upgrade cost will be sooner then
later :)
Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
WAN/Internet Specialist
Actually, they actively recommend against non-standard (ie not registerable)
domain names now.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL
Anyone with .005 of a brain who can read mail headers can see whether mail
is spoofed or not.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: David McSpadden
Yea but what about that 1% that has no clue their sending out viruses?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Durkee, Peter
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to Sender?
We've turned
There were issues with the system attendant's detection logic that could
potentially result in stuck threads, causing issues such as the RUS not
stamping addresses. I don't recall seeing that myself, but a system
attenant service cycle is a quick and free sanity check before calling
PSS!
Neil
Friggin' Lyris!!
Delete and recreate your Outlook profile.
Had the exact same scenario last week on Ex5.5...in fact, after I removed
the mailbox, not only did it not go away, I had TWO instances of the same
mailbox in my Folder list. Deleting and recreating profile quickly fixed
the problem.
I finally got an event error...
Failed to read attribute msExchUserAccountControl from Active Directory
for /O=GSW/OU=Columbus/cn=Recipients/cn=kmoran.
The Schema was properly extended and this attribute exists, but its not
getting set. Which means the RUS is not running and goes back to my
I have nothing to complain about! I've been evaling for about a month...only 3 false
positives thus far. Easy to configure, self maintainable whitelists if mail is
configured to route out through MailEssentials. 3 levels of detection that are
customizablebeautiful product
-Original
Exchange version?
Are you wanting to add a mailbox for them on your servers or just add a
Cust. Recipient entry in the GAL?
-Original Message-
From: Greg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Bulk import of contact list from
Thanks for taking the time to reply Casey.
How much spam do you think is still sneaking through?
Ken
-Original Message-
From: Friese, Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I have nothing to complain about! I've been evaling for
They're getting replies from everyone in their address books saying, what was that
strange message you sent?
-Peter
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:54
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Notifications to
It's the recovery storage group I like.
And Volume Shadow Copy Service.
Granted I don't need an 8-node cluster
OWA is just fluff.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Sadler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: Why
Hi,
Exch 2k on sbs2k - all SP'd up
I had a little scare earlier on with a simultaneous virus alert on one
user and a disk space warning from my server which turned out to be
totally unconnected however while I was trouble shooting a noticed a
couple of odd things:
1) disk space on the
Exchange 2000 - Just want to add contacts (name and Email address) for
affiliated company not part of our domain.
Thanks, Greg
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Bulk import
A pretty good guess is all I have. Monitoring before/after filtering showed that mail
received by my E2K server dropped by 35% when counting incoming messages during the
same time frames.
I could go back through the monitor window that is installed with the product and
look. The monitor
Well, I wish they would make up their minds!
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:48 AM
Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN in Ex55
Actually, they actively recommend against
I was researching an entirely different issue and found that some people were having
trouble with MailEssentials. The following has been copied from that research.
Mail Essentials Problem:
I am also having a problem with Mail Essentials. It's a little different. All email
sent to distribution
I've used BulkAddFromExcel, and it works great with users. Maybe
BulkContactsFromExcel will do what you're looking for.
http://www.cdolive.net/download/
-tom
-Original Message-
From: Greg Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:11 AM
Posted To: MSExchange
At MEC I was told that they were already over 100,000 mailboxes on Exchange
2003 in production.
** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with
Exchange 2003 **
--
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
All on the same PII, 128 Meg, 9.1 GB IDE, Dell OptiPlex. [1]
[1] What is this MEC you speak of?
- Original Message -
From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Why would I want to go to Exchange
They made up their mind a few years back - register the friggin domain and
move on.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Additionally, we create a new SMTP addy for their married name, set it as
the reply to address and leave the old one.
That way, people can still reply to her old e-mails and at some point, they
will start to see the new display name.
I.E. Paula J Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) now becomes Paula J
Move on to what?
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:23 PM
Subject: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: ** SPAM (6.00/5.00) ** RE: Change FQDN
in Ex55
They made up their mind a few years back -
Things that increase the size over raw message byte count:
1. database overhead
2. whitespace - you can see how much in the nightly online maintenance
event log entries.
3. duplication of data - in some cases data exists in both STM and EDB.
Things that reduce the size below raw message byte
Indeed. I forgot about the Recovery Storage Group. The VSCS will be
nice for some folks too.
ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released
http://www.swinc.com/erm
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics
I was told I could choose from Miller Lite or Shiner Bock.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
At MEC I was told that they were already over 100,000 mailboxes on Exchange
2003 in production.
Interesting Bill, I haven't experienced these problem during my eval. I'm evaling
using GFI MailEssentials 8 in a gateway type setting which receives then relays mail
to my e2k sp3 server. My relay machine is a .net server configured as a standalone.
I've found no messages in my badmail
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
