Check your MS licensing. You might be covered for FOPE and I can highly
recommend the service.
Sent on the run!
On 14 Jan 2013, at 19:46, Carol Fee wrote:
> I agree. We've been using the physical 300 for 5 years - no complaints.
>
> CFee
> -Original Message-
> From: N Parr [mailto:n
We use SonicWall for anti-spam and it has been great. We looked at Barracuda
and a couple of cloud services as well as the SonicWall, but they were all
significantly more expensive with no additional "wins" to make the added
expenditure worth it (in our opinion). If you have the budget in place
We have NLB with IGMP and Multicast and it still gives issues unless we cleanly
remove the server from the cluster. Does not appear to be Exchange related as
it happens on out proxy server which uses MS NLB as well. Would appreciate any
feedback myself. Switches are Cisco and I am told IGMP sno
I agree. We've been using the physical 300 for 5 years - no complaints.
CFee
-Original Message-
From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 1:23 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Anti-spam choices in general?
I had the physical 300 model for 5 y
Doesn't the SA also create the email address for mailboxes ?
CFee
From: Miller Bonnie L. [mailto:mille...@mukilteo.wednet.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:45 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Unable to create mail enabled Public Folder in E2K7 SP3
Just an idea, but since the ac
We use Kemp load balancers, LM2200s, they work great, no issues. We have a
similar setup to yours. You can use them to load balance other services as well.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@sfgtrust.com]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issue
A few questions for you Exchange 2010 gurus (I'm pretty new this version).
We have Exchange 2010, four servers, two are DAG and two are client access
servers. We use Windows NLP to balance the load for the client access servers.
All of these servers are running on vmware.
I understand there a
