Id say your getting minor packet loss at a guess, meaning the connection
is not being held up long enough for the mail to be delivered? I would
say there are a lot of aspects to consider when diagnosing such a
problem.
BTW, is Kazakhstan a real place then? I thought it was a place used in
Jest
283.913 ms DNS error [AS9198] Kazakhtelecom Data
Network Administration
13212.154.128.18 820.239 ms DNS error [AS9198] Kazakhtelecom Data
Network Administration
14 *
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: woensdag 29 oktober 2003 11:06
To: Exchange
in their paper MCSE school -
delete that dang E00.log file, those transaction logs are a pain in the
ass anyway, just taking up space.
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday
I must recommend the Exchange agent by Symantec, you buy Norton
Corporate and get the Exchange agent separate, install this, you get a
nice web GUI, and viruses should never land in your users mailboxes ever
again.
Very customizable, you can have it mail all people involved, it can set
size
I had some database corruption over the weekend, ive recovered from this
and the system is working relatively okay. Some mailboxes however seem
to have gotten corrupted.
If I send a mail to a user with a corrupt mailbox, they go into outlook
and there Inbox is empty. I look in the system
: Repairing individual mailboxes
Have you tried restoring to a recovery server with another backup to see
if
you can grab the mailboxes that way?
What caused the initial corruption?
- Original Message -
From: Neil Doody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
Just another quick question, if you may ;p
The peoples whos mailboxes are b0rke, the only way to tell they were was
the fact that there were emails in the queue that couldn't be delivered,
apart from that everything else checks out.
Is there any other way of running an extensive test that will
Yep.
-Original Message-
From: Michelle Harmon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 30 September 2003 19:23
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Repairing individual mailboxes
Did you ever run isinteg?
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday
not have
detected some of the problems, or maybe there was a problem during
defrag? I am stumped anyway.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody
Sent: 30 September 2003 19:23
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Repairing individual mailboxes
Yep.
-Original Message-
From: Michelle
Ai, ill do that now, but I did do it last night, I ran it, did some
things, then just before the defrag ran it once more and there was no
errors! Then I continued to do the defrag after.
Maybe I should have run it once more after the defrag huh? Ill know for
next time ;p
-Original
I do an NTBackup dump of it in addition atm, but even though most people
are on PST's it is still leaving me with an unacceptable level of hdd
space left, well in my view anyway. As it stands they want to keep
the brick level ability to restore individual mailboxes, I think I have
persuaded them
Does anyone know what this defrag error means? And how to fix the
problem?
Also, anyone have a link to some good online ESEUTIL documentation?
Other than the Microsoft website, want to get a good comprehensive
manual for ESEUTIL usage.
Error :-
Operation terminated with error -1603
Already tried that, try adding the 1603 into the equation and there is
not listing for that error number.
Ive also tried the search term Currency not on a record it lists
JetPack errors, which is just a list of possible errors, with no fixes.
And then it has something listed about Microsoft
I know this isn't an outlook support list, but I thought there must be
plenty of Outlook experts in an Exchange discussion list :p
The problem I'm having is that if I have rules set to move mails from
the inbox to other folders for some reason, this prevents the Junk Email
filters from working,
]
Sent: 24 September 2003 10:48
To: Exchange Discussions
I would guess that the junk mail filters are using rules, and you might
need to set Continue Processing Rules But then if you've already
filtered them are they junk?
Harriet
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL
Of Neil Doody
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 00:00
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Junk Mail Filters
Well in outlook 2003, the junk rules are replaced with a built in filter
facility, a separate entry from normal rules. The email is definintly
Junk, but I'm wanting to use
Hi, ive got a server that will only be on dial up via a modem. I have
set the server up to act as a Domain Controller so that is has its own
copy of the active directory.
I have installed Routing and Remote Access with dial on demand and
static routes so that everything flows nicely.
So far
://www.swinc.com/erm
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:00 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: ETRN - Dial Up only
Subject: ETRN - Dial Up only
Hi, ive got a server that will only
with it.
ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:02 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: ETRN - Dial Up
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:02 AM
Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
Conversation: ETRN - Dial Up only
Subject: RE: ETRN - Dial Up only
I think ive scrapped the idea, found that it started working normally
after a few routes had
I have just got our developer to download Outlook 11 BETA 2 from our
MSDN subscription.
However, it doesnt install on either windows 95 or 98. Does anyone have
any insider info of wether or not this will change before the final
release of Outlook 11?
What are you thanking me for ?
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 June 2003 15:43
To: Exchange Discussions
Thanks Neil
_
List posting FAQ:
I am pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and fine!
-Original Message-
From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 June 2003 11:01
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Brick level backups
Read http://mail.tekscan.com/nomailboxes.htm and for those jumping the
Anyone any links to white papers on this new single instance storage?
Obviously I am now going to go check the manufacturers site of bother
veritas backup-exec and this comvault galaxy, but thought either of you
may have some interesting read ups.
Obviously I prefer the idea of item retention and
Absolute madness last night.
I was making the new policys which include the legacy domain names, some
how EVERY single email address for EVERY single recipient in the whole
organisation had there email address wiped, all that remained was the
X400 addresses.
What gives?
(General
screen, Modify, Find Now) applies to.
Make one recipient policy. Add all the proper addresses. Apply it to
nobody. And check (general modify find now) that it applies to
nobody.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 2:37
Okay, weve got more than one local domain on the exchange server, only
one domain is actually used for the servers, i.e. the active directory,
the other domains are just legacy internet domains with the MX record
set as our exchange server.
To allow delivery of emails to people in the exchange
relaying to these domains would make Exchange think that these
are
local domains. I only use recipient policies to anchor domains as local.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 6:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Multiple domains
have to apply to anybody (much less
everybody) - they just need to BE there. Make a recipient policy that
applies to nobody that has all those domains. Get rid of the connector.
Problem solved. They'll bounce properly at that point.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL
you mean?
Im using exchange 2000.
-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 June 2003 16:45
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Multiple domains.
leave it blank. Or create a query that won't find anyone.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody
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
versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM
.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the
entire Exchange
strategy
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
a site called... http://www.microsoft.com that has some
pretty
good reads about Exchange. Granted, MS documentation is not as thorough
as
a Linux man page, but maybe they'll come around in time.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 1:02
When you purchase sufficient Exchange 2000 licensing, you're entitled to
install Outlook 2000 on each of the licensed clients, or so im lead to
believe? :o
Anyway, can you install Outlook XP on these clients without the need for
any kind of Office XP license?
: Backing up the M Drive
LOL...
Yah...I'll go through some of my bookmarked pages today and see what I
can
put together for you.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backing up the M Drive
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 June 2003 18:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backing up the M Drive
Neil,
Have you even bothered to read the FAQ? All of the questions you are
asking
about restores/backups/retention are all in there.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL
I know this is a long shot because arcserve is so crap, but I was
wondering if someone may have an answer :o
Basically ive been backing up with arcserve the public folders, today I
have needed to restore something. I have the exchange agent which as
far as I know is correctly installed,
restore the whole folder?
All the best,
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2. juni 2003 16:04
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Arcserve and restoring public folder calander
I know this is a long shot because arcserve is so crap, but I
I honestly have come to conclusion today that my arcserve backups would
be a lot better off backing up the M drive, and not using the Exchange
Agent at all.
Does anyone else get this feeling ?
_
List posting FAQ:
with arcserve you'd be better off with a
different backup solution! (I switched to backup exec)
Todd
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backing up the M Drive
I honestly have come to conclusion
!
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 June 2003 16:38
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backing up the M Drive
There is no M Drive
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Doody
Sent: Monday
application?
A: You can, but you will be sad. Do NOT back up the M: drive of an
Exchange 2000 server. It can result in messages and attachments being
inaccessible via the Outlook client.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Doody
Sent: Monday
Well Rachel, Christopher, thanks for the pointers, something for me to
bare in mind.
I guess I shall try not to use the backups of the M drive to do
restores, apart from in cases like this, which I would have been able to
restore all the .EML files to my computer and dragged them into the
public
yourself in the eye
with a red-hot fireplace poker and you will experience the same sort of
pain, but your mailbox data will remain intact.
John Matteson
Geac Corporate ISS
(404) 239 - 2981
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted
Maryland
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backing up the M Drive
I honestly have come to conclusion today that my arcserve backups would
be a lot better off backing up the M drive
Q
Articles there to explain how to set this up.
Hth,
Bob Sadler
City of Leawood, KS, USA
WAN/Internet Specialist
913-339-6700 x194
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 12:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backing up the M
]
Sent: 02 June 2003 18:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Backing up the M Drive
Neil,
Have you even bothered to read the FAQ? All of the questions you are
asking
about restores/backups/retention are all in there.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 02/06/2003 18:50
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Backing up the M Drive
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 02/06/2003 18:17
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc
created instances on those public folder servers?
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Doody
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 12:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Hi
Hi, to combat a problem I have been having, I have recreated the
configuration within Exchange, and used different routing groups for
different servers to accomplish the same setup as I had previously.
However, since putting the different servers in different routing
groups, public folders are no
52 matches
Mail list logo
