The item is being converted to plain text en route, the solution would be
for it not to be converted... The problem might exist on your side if you've
specified that mail to this domain be sent in plain text only. Or the user
may have an option set to send to this recipient in plain text. You coul
does the console connect to only one server? (if there are many saved
connections, it will take extra time to open)
On the second note - just one RAID5 for everything???
-Original Message-
From: Dolphin, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:09 PM
To: Exchange D
It only connects to one server...also, there's only around 100 recipients.
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:26 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin console opens slw
does the console connect to only one server
Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin console opens slw
It only connects to one server...also, there's only around 100 recipients.
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:26 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 admin console
Practice first on your recovery/test server
Stop any 3rd party services etc...
Reapply Exch SPs and any hotfixes.
-Original Message-
From: Timmothy Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Standard to Enterpris
Q170280 is for you!
-Original Message-
From: Timmothy Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Standard to Enterprise upgrade
We've reached the 16.0 GB limit and are preparing to upgrade to the
Enterprise versi
I was going through the Enterprise Edition requirements.
Microsoft states that it requires NT 4.0 Enterprise Edition. If I'm not
planning on implementing the clustering capabilities is that absolutely
the case?
_
List posting FAQ:
"Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Standard to Enterprise upgrade
> Q170280 is for you!
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Timmothy Green [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Timmothy Green
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 12:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Standard to Enterprise upgrade
I was going through the Enterprise Edition requirements.
Microsoft states that it requires NT 4.0 Enterprise Edition. If I'm not
planni
Try the legacyExchnageDN.
-Original Message-
From: Kretche, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:41 PM
Posted To: Exchange
Conversation: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 upgrade issue.
Subject: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 upgrade issue.
Recently we began our Exchange 5.5 to
Typing is bad today: legacyExchangeDN
-Original Message-
From: Exchange
Posted At: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:27 PM
Posted To: Exchange
Conversation: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 upgrade issue.
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 upgrade issue.
Try the legacyExchnageDN.
-Original Message
Message-
From: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 upgrade issue.
Typing is bad today: legacyExchangeDN
-Original Message-
From: Exchange
Posted At: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 3:27 PM
Posted To
With only 12 users, you really have lots of options, I think.
Even exporting the clients mailboxes to .pst (and using Outlook to
export the public folders to .pst) and doing a clean installation
instead of an upgrade.
But, more formally:
http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000
I think this is the general route I'd take...
1. Buy new server
2. Install NT4 as a BDC of your current domain
3. Promote new server to PDC (which will simultaneously demote the old PDC).
4. Install win2k server on new server, converting domain to mixed mode AD
5. Install ADC, do forestprep and
hange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 (sp4) to E2K upgrade
>
> With only 12 users, you really have lots of options, I think.
>
> Even exporting the clients mailboxes to .pst (and using Outlook to
> export the public folders to .pst) and doing a clean installation
>
Depending on how you define "join", that may or not be practical. Do
they have the exact same organization name?
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:[EMAIL
No. There are 2 companies that have been bought by one person and we
were wanting to have the 5.5 site join the 2000 organization.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: July 18, 2002 10:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 SBE and
Not that I have ever found.
Nate Couch
EDS Messaging
-Original Message-
From: Finch Brett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 3:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Spam Block multiple domain
In Exchange 5.5 (SPK4 NT4 SPK6a) on the Internet Mail
Hi-tech: buy a product like Quest MessageStats or NetIQ AppAnalyzer
Low-tech method 1: subscribe all of your DL's to a Public Folder and monitor that
Low-tech method 2: contact the owners of all DL's and ask them if the list is still
needed
-Original Message-
From: Huntington, Debra D.
There are 3rd party tools to manage this, but nothing built into Exchange.
One would really need to examine the tracking logs over time to determine
the last time a list was used I think. Try hiding them all and unhide them
as people complain? I assign DLs owners and let them worry about whether
th
Do an export of the DL's to a CSV file, review the extract for any high
level users (GS-10 or up, O-5 or above, or the rake of Chief Petty
officer or above); mark these with a "do not delete" flag. Any lists
that have zero users, delete outright; if the list has three or fewer
members, hide the Dl
Well, if you want free, then look into using the Microsoft Mail dirsync
tool. You have to make an unsupported change to the serial number of
one of your shadow MS Mail Postoffices so that the two are different,
but it is supposed to work.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Ser
Ed, thanks for the reply, this is actually Exchange 5.5 ORG1 to Exchange
5.5 ORG2 directory sync I'm trying to get working, we're merging with two
other companies each running Exchange 5.5 and we're not quite ready to go
to AD and Exch 2K yet so we're trying to get some connectivity between the
dif
GAL's replicating.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy Russell
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory sync across orgs
Ed, thanks for the reply, this is actually Ex
, 2003 7:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory sync across orgs
Ed, thanks for the reply, this is actually Exchange 5.5 ORG1 to Exchange
5.5 ORG2 directory sync I'm trying to get working, we're merging with
two other companies each running Exchange 5.5 and we&#x
Connect to your E2K server (it's actually the SRS you are connecting to)
with the 5.5 admin program. This should allow you to delete the 5.5
server.
-Original Message-
From: McCullar, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, May 20, 2002 10:30 AM
Posted To: Exchange Discussion
ADSIEdit - wack it from Active Directory at that level. But be careful
screwing around with ADSIEdit. It's like playing with the registry, maybe
even more dangerous.
-Original Message-
From: McCullar, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discuss
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 server won't go away
ADSIEdit - wack it from Active Directory at that level. But be careful
screwing around with ADSIEdit. It's like playing with the registry,
maybe
even more dangerous.
-Original Message-
From: McCullar, Doug [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Se
My first question is on the second ESEUTIL run di you run a defrag or did
you run some other switch with it? If you did not run a second defrag after
you cleaned out the accounts then that is your issue. MS Exchange does
defrag automatically, but it does not compress automatically. In order to
r
Set the Deleted Item Retention time for messages to 0 and IS maintenance to
"always" and let that puppy run for awhile. Also, check the 1221 events in
the app log and see how much space has been freed up. The 1221's will give
you the min amount you can reclaim after defragging with eseutil again.
I ran the util with the /d command switch. Was this correct?
pat
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=engli
5.5 private stores and purging
Subject: RE: exchange 5.5 private stores and purging
I ran the util with the /d command switch. Was this correct?
pat
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Inter
Andy,
I went into the IS Maintenance and did what was requested. I also went and
set the deleted file retention to "0" and removed the check box that
relates to keeping the message until a backup is done.
In the app log I see a bunch of 1003 and 1006 messages stating that
messages and attachments
r 13, 2003 12:12 PM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: exchange 5.5 private stores and purging
Subject: RE: exchange 5.5 private stores and purging
Andy,
I went into the IS Maintenance and did what was requested. I also went
and set the deleted file retention to "0" and removed
Thanks Ben. So far the only 1221's that are showing up are the one's for
the MSExchangePub but none for the MSExchange Private. Will it show some
type of progress message? All I keep seeing are the messages relating
deleting messages and attachments.
what do you think?
Pat
___
Nate, Andy, and Ben,
thanks for all of your help concerning this issue. I finally received a
1221 message from the server at 6 pm last night. It told me I have 6509
Megabytes of space free. Very cool. I will be doing another eseutil /d
/priv over the weekend and another backup.
Once again THA
Guys,
good news, I did the eseutil /d /priv on my exchange box and now have
regained my space back.
thanks for the help
Pat
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.spa
no prob
> --
> From: pat karr
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 12:33 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: exchange 5.5 private stores and purging
>
> Guys,
>
> good news, I did the eseut
ehalf Of pat karr
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: exchange 5.5 private stores and purging
Guys,
good news, I did the eseutil /d /priv on my exchange box and now have
regained my space back.
thanks for the help
Directory of V:\exchsrvr\CONNECT\MSMCON
02/15/2000 03:44 PM .
02/15/2000 03:44 PM ..
02/15/2000 03:44 PM BIN
02/15/2000 03:44 PM MAILDATA
0 File(s) 0 bytes
4 Dir(s) 1,170,735,104 bytes free
Direc
Can we see your c: drive as well?
-Original Message-
From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
Directory of V:\exchsrvr\CONNECT
Sure...I'll open all the FW ports that way you can get what you want.
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:20 PM
>>>To: Exchange Discussions
>>>Subject: RE:
Just sharing it and suplpying the IP will suffice.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
Can we see
mm
open ports...
-Original Message-
From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
Sure...I'll open all the FW ports tha
I think this takes the crown for "The most absurd request of 2001".
-Original Message-
From: Kim Kruse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
Can someone please send me a
ed TechNet by CD and online; tried to search at swynk. Anyone
know of other internet Exchange resources that might have this list?
Thx
-Original Message-
From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
S
I don't understand; that's exactly what Monteleone-Haught gave you.
Exactly what are you looking for?
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Kruse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5
l Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 3:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
I don't understand; that's exactly what Monteleone-Haught gave you.
Exactly what are you looking for?
- Original Mess
OTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 5:57 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
> I'm looking for the full dir structure - down to the file level so I can
> compare mine and see what else
ECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 4:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
Why not just install it? And I still don't see what the point is; what is
the desired end result of having a long list of filenames?
Some files won&#x
quot; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:35 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 Directory Structure Print Out Request
> Well - I was hoping for
> All these files are installed on all Exchange 5.5 servers:
> file name - location
> file name - location
> The
I haven't tried to upgrade to win2k. I usually advice against OS upgrades
and just format reload. It's usually a much cleaner load. What would be
better of course (for those with large budgets) is to buy a newer/better box
for ISA and W2k since it requires more resources to run.
As for making ch
Dunno... That depends entirely on *why* the IS won't start. There are
hundreds of error codes that we could choose from... Or you could help us
out...
Stephen
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:10 PM
To: Exchange Disc
Friggin' Lyris.
Friggin' delete ESEUTIL from your hard drive, and don't use it until MS
Product Support Services tells you to.
White space is no big deal. Why do you care if you have 10mb of white
space in your 100mb store, vs. a 90 mb store that will only grow to
100mb in two days anyway? Or
Definitely. Take your hands off the keyboard and step away from the server.
PS, why no SP4?
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 7:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 SP3 does not defrag PRIV.EDB
Did you actually replicate the content? The connection agreement
doesn't do that, you have to add the replica onto the new server.
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Technical Consultant
hp Services
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
-Original Message-
From: [EMA
@;pacbell.net]
Posted At: Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:38 AM
Posted To: List - Exchange Server List
Conversation: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Public Folder replication
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Public Folder replication
Did you actually replicate the content? The connection agreement
doesn't do
Does this occur on all installed instances of the Admin program?
On 3/21/03 20:33, "sukei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have encountered a problem of exchange 5.5 administrator, when I open
> the exchange administrator and select the left side of the "connection"
> item tab, it
We just remove an old exchange 5.5 box and when we switched it over to exchange 2000
box all public folders are receiving messages as posts not as message formats. Does
anyone know a quick fix to this problem without using third party programs.
rich
_
This is by design. LOL.
- Original Message -
From: "Tener, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 10:15 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 administrator display cannot display item
We just re
older arrive as messages, NOT posts.
And *please* don't say to convert the PF to a Mailbox :P
Glenn
- Original Message -
From: "Missy Koslosky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 3:48
Ts and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 2:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 administrator display cannot display item
Missy,
is it REALLY by design ?
Yes. All you need to do is to set different remote domains under the
SMTP virtual server. Be careful, though, do NOT check the "allow
incoming mail to be relayed to this domain" for domains that you are not
receiving mail for.
Andrew
MCSE (w2k/nt4) + CCNA
> -Original Message-
> From: Ni
2000 SMTP
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 IMS vs. Windows 2000 SMTP
Yes. All you need to do is to set different remote domains under the
SMTP virtual server. Be careful, though, do NOT check the "allow
incoming mail to be relayed to this domain" for domains that you are not
receiving mail fo
One big one -- you can't go back to Mixed mode once you switch to Native
mode.
Geoff
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Woodworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 and Active Directory Native Mode
I have an Exc
Here's another.
The ADC replicates all Exch5.5 DLs to the AD as universal distribution
groups (UDG's), these can exist in either a mixed or native mode AD. But, if
you plan to use the E2K equivalent DL object for access to PF's, E2K will
need to convert the UDG to a Universal Security Group (
Great story, Tom - good fodder for those yet to make the journey.
-Original Message-
From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
This is just an informational post, you're w
I don't mean to rub salt into your wounds, but many of the gurus on this
list frequently mention the need for a lab environment, even if it
consist of only a couple of older PCs.
Your situation could have been avoided if you restored your AD and
exchange 5.5 into a 2-PC lab environment, and perf
t;From: Ryan Malayter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:18 PM
>To: Exchange Discussions
>Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
>
>
>I don't mean to rub salt into your wounds, but many of the
>gurus on this
>list frequently men
Hello,
I did in-place upgrades from Exchange Betas to E2K over the last 5+ years. They all
worked fine except for 5.5 to E2K.
I spent 3+ months labbing the in-place upgrade and got things seemingly to work just
fine. (I went Native in Win2K before doing any Exchange upgrade). The upgrade w
work day to end to switch to Native mode for Exchange.
-Tony
-Original Message-
From: EXTERN Hlabse Tony (Tek Systems;RBNA/CIT1)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 1:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
Or why not in
cussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
Hello,
I did in-place upgrades from Exchange Betas to E2K over the last 5+
years. They all worked fine except for 5.5 to E2K.
I spent 3+ months labbing the in-place upgrade and got things seemingly
to work just fine. (I went
: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
>>Actually if we had to do it over again I'd keep us at E5.5, and I'd
fight to stay there until my retirement!
Why?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MS Exchange
List
Sent: F
ED]]
Posted At: Friday, August 02, 2002 3:56 PM
Posted To: MS Exchange List
Conversation: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
>>Actually if we had to do it over again I'd keep us at E5.5, and I'd
fight to stay there until my
Well, then we'll just agree to disagree.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MS Exchange
List
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
>>>Actuall
to accept it.
-tony
-Original Message-
From: MS Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 4:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
>>>Actually if we had to do it over again I'd keep us at E5.5, an
Tom -
I found this to be a great post as I'll be doing the same exact thing in
about 3 weeks for a customer! Let us know how you make out.
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom.Gray
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:41 PM
To: Exchang
the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MS Exchange
List
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 2:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 to 2000 Upgrade horror story
Hello,
I did in-place upgrade
Install the Exchange Administrator (free) on the backup machine and then
you can correctly back up Exchange from that machine using NTBACKUP.
Forget kludgy brick backups:
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_appxb.htm
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Technical Consultant
hp Services
"There are seldom good
ire server plus backup the Exchange single instance database
as individual mailboxes (for much easier recover).
BTW, great website - thanks for the link!
I'd still like to know why IMS had begun to fail after a backup. Any
thoughts on this.
>Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 IMS (port 25) fails
sample if you can't find them in Technet...note, this may just magically
solve your IMS problem as well.
David
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 4:22 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 IMS
d - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:22 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 IMS (port 25) fails - revi
novis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA
> -Original Message-
> From: Shawn Connelly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:22 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 IMS (port 25) fails - revisited
>
>
> Ed,
>
ssage-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and Windows 2003
Exchange 5.5 is not supported on Windows 2003 server. I don't even know if
it would work.
-Original Message-
Fro
, 2003 6:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and Windows 2003 - upgd/mig...
Q to all...after reading part of this thread and being in the boat of
starting to plan my migration and just reading some of the FAQ's
with regard to:
"Exchange 2003 server. And the only ot
thanks Ed. Guess Ill just kinda be Leaping
(History Of the World Part I ... comes into mind)
thx
bill
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and Windows 2003
Does the dev server have McAfee installed on it as well?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 SP4 Patch KB829418 - STORE.EXE GPF
I have applied recent MS Patch KB829
Yes, identical version of McAfee GroupShield.
Only difference seems to be loading - dev server has very little traffic -
production is busy.
Thanks
Dave
> Does the dev server have McAfee installed on it as well?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
Are you moving it from the Excchange 5.5 admin or the ESM?
Doesn't work from 5.5 Admin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Schwarz
Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 2:56 p.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 To 2000 Move M
Moving mailboxes using the Active Directory, Exchange Tasks submenu. Move
mailbox command. From what I understand, you can not use the Exchange
Move Server tool if the servers are in the same site.
_
List posting FAQ: http://w
] On Behalf Of Stephen Schwarz
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 To 2000 Move Mailbox Issue
Moving mailboxes using the Active Directory, Exchange Tasks submenu. Move
mailbox command. From what I understand, you can not use the Exchange Move
Check the account you're using and be sure that it has the correct Exchange
permissions.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen
I am having a serious problem with "new mail notifications" over a WAN.
Basically they don't update until a user clicks on a nether message or waits
in excess of 20 minutes. Needless to say users are frustrated by this due to
the fact that they don't "think" their mail has been sent.
Is there a wo
I dont think anyone here has ever heard of this problem.
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail notifications)
I am having a serious problem
, 2002 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail notifications)
I dont think anyone here has ever heard of this problem.
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Excha
You forgot to add the tags. There are those that still require
them.
Tom.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail notifications)
I dont
Check the archives. I believe we have discussed this about four times in
the last month or so.
Tom.
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail
I think you missed Andy's blazing sarcasm tag. I just assume it's always
there unless someone else tells me he had a right answer. :)
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Ex
> -Original Message-
> From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 January 2002 17:20
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail notifications)
>
>
> WOW! I have NEVER seen that statement made before on this
&
tems
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail notifications)
WOW! I have NEVER seen that statement made before on this list, that's
scary. Is the
401 - 500 of 614 matches
Mail list logo
