Teaching Outlook calendars

2001-08-21 Thread Roger Mackenzie
getting time consuming and messy to implement. For what it's worth we are running Exs 5.5 SP4. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archi

RE: Teaching Outlook calendars

2001-08-21 Thread Roger Mackenzie
Matthew, Yup, you can but not on any of the tutors machines! Weird. Re-install time I fear. Thanks, Roger -Original Message- From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 August 2001 12:10 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Teaching Outlook cale

RE: Urgent

2001-08-21 Thread Roger Mackenzie
Adil, Does the 'pop up' ask for 3 items - login id, domain and password, or just two - login id and password? Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Adil Azad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 21 August 2001 12:57 To: Exchange Discussio

RE: Movinng Exchange !

2001-09-17 Thread Roger Mackenzie
Sorry, just back in the office so this reply may be too late. Is not the answer to add another server to the same site and organisation and move the mailboxes? At least that seems to be the implication of 'because the old machine is running out of disk'. Cheers, Roger Mackenzi

RE: Removing Exchange 2000 after abortive install

2001-09-19 Thread Roger Mackenzie
Q273478 perhaps? otherwise "no comment" Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Tim Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 September 2001 08:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Removing Exchange 2000 after abortive install Have any of you ever

Removable Storage Manager

2001-12-03 Thread Roger Mackenzie
th the tape media as it is actual live service backup and I don't want caught out with trashed recovery tapes. I should perhaps add that the backup spans 4 tapes. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ Lis

RE: Server memory?

2001-12-21 Thread Roger Mackenzie
gh you can't as you'll be at the hardware limit on processors. Cheers, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 December 2001 18:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Server memory? It really depends

RE: Win2k backup and Exchange

2002-01-10 Thread Roger Mackenzie
. When the engineer rebuilt the system logically everything was in working order and has been .(did I just about say something foolish there) Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 06:56 To: Exchange

RE: Moving information store to a network drive

2001-10-31 Thread Roger Mackenzie
I tried this on one time and all looked well for the copy to networked drive; just it never copied back and I never did find out why. Thank heavens I had a tape backup - don't be tempted to skip that stage (mine was online but offline would do). Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow Unive

Eseutil

2001-11-20 Thread Roger Mackenzie
low level hardware problem, not a software problem. Any experiences you can relate would be appreciated. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archi

RE: Eseutil

2001-11-20 Thread Roger Mackenzie
st to tell you. What kind of RAID card is it? What kind of cache does it have? Does it support a really heavy load of disk I/O's? -Original Message----- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseut

Outlook address resolution SO SLOW

2002-01-17 Thread Roger Mackenzie
ith the service. Any thoughts? Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe:

RE: Outlook address resolution SO SLOW

2002-01-17 Thread Roger Mackenzie
? > -Original Message- > From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 January 2002 10:32 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Outlook address resolution SO SLOW > > > Folks, > > Does anyone recognise this bizarre situation. > >

RE: Outlook address resolution SO SLOW

2002-01-17 Thread Roger Mackenzie
. O2K had to be transformed to work with TS - I not know if other office versions need this but does any of it fit with your predicament Roger? PBB ~ndi -Original Message----- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 January 2002 12:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: R

RE: Outlook address resolution SO SLOW

2002-01-17 Thread Roger Mackenzie
help. Regards PBB ~ndi -Original Message----- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 17 January 2002 13:39 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook address resolution SO SLOW Paul, Thanks for this; I avoided O2K as it needs the admin kit (is that the name) to in

ADS DC hardware

2002-03-04 Thread Roger Mackenzie
2 IDE drives per machine. Has anyone any experience of this scenario as far as DCs are concerned? Would you offer any cautions from experience? I should say our current NT4 PDC is a fairly limited desktop box and the experience on what is a small domain has been completely OK. Regards,

RE: ADS DC hardware

2002-03-04 Thread Roger Mackenzie
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Mackenzie Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: ADS DC hardware Folks, I'm looking for practical experience from anyone running 'minimal' hardware configurations for domain controllers in an AD forest sup

RE: Unable to move items to a PST

2002-03-06 Thread Roger Mackenzie
I've seen this a few times and NAV isn't in our picture - nor any other EXS based scanning. It seems to me to have something to do with the client, and in the cases I've seen it's intermittent. Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Blunt, J

RE: in-place upgrade to W2K (NOT Exchange 2000)

2002-03-26 Thread Roger Mackenzie
belatedly let me comment that I've done this several times in a test environment and the one thing I overlooked was the backup device; I still cannot get an Onstream tape device to perform properly under W2K. Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Stevens,

RE: Building ex 5.5 test lab

2002-03-26 Thread Roger Mackenzie
rver. Once installed, restored and connected on your isolated lan segment the two servers should 'bond' and behave as your original servers in your original site. Cheers, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Se

RE: Sharing a custom folder under mailbox

2002-04-16 Thread Roger Mackenzie
but beware, if you create further folders under your mailbox, they'll inherit reviewer permissions - which is likely not what you want. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 15 April 2002 21:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sharing a custom fo

unable to install EXS5.5 on W2K

2002-05-13 Thread Roger Mackenzie
ing and re-installing as suggested in Q246286 yields the same result. I wondering if anyone else has seen this recently. There are two things which have changed - installing IE6 from Windows Update (I normally leave it at IE5 SP2) and the inevitable drift of patches inherent in using Windows Update. Che

RE: addressing to a custom attribute?

2002-05-15 Thread Roger Mackenzie
We do this using address book views for surname base on custom attribute 1 (as it happens). Works fine. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 14 May 2002 23:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: addressing to a custom attribute? Oops sorry. Exchange

RE: addressing to a custom attribute? | ABV

2002-05-15 Thread Roger Mackenzie
Correct but, as in the case of surnames, it narrows down the range you need to look at. I guess this isn't going to work from your reaction. Perhaps you need to set up a contacts folder indexed by employee number and put this on everyone's address list. Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow

RE: Other Exchange mailing lists?

2002-05-22 Thread Roger Mackenzie
Dare I say it, well what the heck. The Yahoo 2000 list likely sports a similar membership to this one but is very much less "cluttered". Odd really! -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 22 May 2002 16:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Other Exchange

RE: Opening other users calendar

2002-05-27 Thread Roger Mackenzie
vant calendar folder permissions it requires 'folder visible' permission at the mailbox level and that permission will be inherited by any new folders. Not too serious unless you name a folder 'mynewmistress' or whatever and forget to take the folder visible permission off. Roger Macke