Postmaster as a public folder

I have been pondering the idea of moving my postmaster mailbox from a mailbox to a public folder so I can assign age limits and such (I can easily get up to 100,000 emails of junk during a 7 day period). Are there any drawbacks to doing this (in either Exchange 5.5 or 2k)?

RE: Postmaster as a public folder

PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of paragon400 Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Postmaster as a public folder I have been pondering the idea of moving my postmaster mailbox from a mailbox to a public folder so I can assign age limits and such (I can easily get up

RE: Kill new e-mail messages to previous employees

This brings up a question in my mind that I have to ask. In Exch 5.5\2000, is there a known limit to the number of addresses an object (in this case a DL) can have? -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 1:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions

RE: emergency help needed

Bashir, You should call PSS and in the future I would highly recommend that you test any patches on a test server that mirrors your production environment before installing it on a live production server. -Original Message- From: Bashir Malekzada [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:

RE: MacAfee or Symantec ?

I have been using McAfee software for a number of years now (not always willingly). I am now using GSE 5.0 for Exchange 5.5 and it is far superior to it's predecessor (v4.5). We have it on 70 servers being managed by ePO and it works perfectly. -Original Message- From: Jean-Francois

Large IS DB

Fellow exchange admins\engineers\gurus, Does anyone have any suggestions for this situation? Config: Exchange 5.5 SP4 WinNT 4.0 SP6 Priv.edb = 45GB Deleted Item Cache = 11.5 GB Deleted Item retention was 7 days, but in an effort to fix this I set it to 3 days to see if it would make a

RE: Large IS DB

] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of paragon400 Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 10:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Large IS DB Fellow exchange admins\engineers\gurus, Does anyone have any suggestions for this situation? Config: Exchange 5.5 SP4 WinNT 4.0 SP6 Priv.edb = 45GB Deleted Item Cache

RE: Large IS DB

give a truer picture of free space. -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 24 May 2002 19:16 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Large IS DB We have done a number of IS compresses to try to resolve it and only gotten about 2-4 GB of space (no surprise because

RE: Large IS DB

is merely temporary, and its punishment is but an urge for me to greater effort to achieve my goal. Defeat simply tells me that something is wrong in my doing; it is a path leading to success and truth. --Bruce Lee -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday

RE: Klez virus

If you want some of my 15,000 copies sitting in quarantine I would be more then happy to share (and yes..that is just in the last 24 hours) :-) -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:

RE: Klez virus

, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Klez virus 15,000?? In 24 hours? Yikes! How big is your organization? Did someone inside get it? We've received 40 or so in the last 24 hours, and I don't feel at all deprived. -Peter -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL

RE: Virus activity

What is it that is being reported by Antigen? If it is Klez then that would not surprise me. My perimeter has been hammered by Klez for some time now (about 15-20k a day...which is more then the 2-4k I normally see). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

RE: OWA Settings

Chris, If I remember correctly it is located in the registry at: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeWEB\Parameters There is a server object under Parameters and all you would need to do is point it to the correct server. I am assuming you are talking about OWA 5.5.

eseutil /d

I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that eseutil should not

RE: eseutil /d

: Re: eseutil /d One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning for this and then you can address their concerns. - Original Message - From: paragon400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: eseutil /d I

RE: eseutil /d

]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d I am SO going to enjoy this thread. :o) -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d I have some

RE: OWA 5.5 SP4 errors

errors Q252712 -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 4:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA 5.5 SP4 errors Hello everyone! I have a quick question. I am constantly seeing the below errors on my OWA machines

IMS Connections

I am running Exch 5.5 SP4. I need to lock down my IMS so that only certain machines can connect to it internally (it is not in the DMZ, I have a Sendmail box route mail in to the IMS). I know that under the IMS I can Specify by Host what machines can connect to the IMS, but is there a way to

RE: IMS Connections

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IMS Connections Umm now I might put those machine in a given IP range/net then maybe allow that IP range say like 192.168.1.0 that might work -Original Message- From: paragon400