)
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2009 10:27 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
I also
-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
Because it's a database app with performance limits as opposed to a
file
server.
[This message is somewhat
I was wondering what Bill Gates used to haul manure for his garden...
:-)
From: Steve Szabo [mailto:steve...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:45 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
But, a Lamborghini is a truck. See
http
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
Because it's a database app with performance limits as opposed to a
file
server.
[This message is somewhat vague theory
-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:29 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
Because it's
That's when you pull out the Sarbox documentation...
From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
I am going to use that response next time my CEO tells me I
Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
All true..though not completely honest comparisons. If there's a
business requirement, size the solution and tell the business how much
it costs. Simply telling people I know you spent thousands/millions,
but I won't help you store files in a way that's easy
-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:23 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Not intending to delve into the vagaries of the ESE implementation; however, it
is worthwhile to note that Exchange 2007 changed database
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.com wrote:
I am going to use that response next time my CEO tells me I have to adapt my
systems to his requirements, like when he wants to have a password policy
for himself that is less stringent than anyone else's :-)
That's
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.com wrote:
Sometimes one has to adapt to the limitation of a system, but
when possible, it's better to adapt the system to better do the job.
Okay... I want to use my car to go 85 mph down the highway, but I have
people telling
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
That's not true. I will help them store files in a way for the business
to understand, but using the hardware and the software that was designed
for that purpose.
-Original Message-
From: James Wells [mailto:jam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:34 AM
And the problem with that is...?
-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.com
wrote:
I am going
MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP
-Original Message-
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:09 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
And the problem with that is...?
-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott
I'm in 100% agreement with that.
From: Campbell, Rob [rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 8:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
My biggest complaint with using it as data storage isn't
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.com wrote:
I strongly suspect
SOx is simply commonly used as a convenient justification for
implementing better password practices.
And the problem with that is...?
Nothing, unless the CEO catches you at it. :)
-- Ben
~
An illegal alien gardener.
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I was wondering what Bill Gates used to haul manure for his garden
.
By the way, I agree with everything you said, except the absoluteness of its
presentation.
-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:47 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
My biggest dig is that if you email
MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:15 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I don't see file system storage access for companies very often anymore. Oh
sure
, 2009 10:30 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Yes I do
__
Stefan Jafs
From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: May-05-09 9:54 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I have
Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
I also have deleted item retention set for 14 days.
I figured these are pretty typical limits?
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj
Least it's not forever
/snicker
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:20 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Limits here are 2Gb, lots of large proposals with large pdf attachments that
people need to keep for 100 years (joke
True :) but way past my lifetime!
___
Stefan Jafs
From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Least it's not forever
/snicker
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
I also have deleted item retention set for 14 days.
I figured these are pretty typical limits?
From
average of 190 users is 260Mb but almost all
are archived.
___
Stefan Jafs
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:40 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Nope, not in my opinion...
60MB warn
are for.
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:36 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
How many users what industry?
For many users Outlook is the application they use 90% of the time as
long as you have
WOW.
What size is/are the store(s)?
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:42 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
400 users, retail.
Outlook is a very nice application to keep track
: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:36 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
How many users what industry?
For many users Outlook is the application they use 90% of the time as
long as you have the storage and capacity why severely
About 38GB.
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
WOW.
What size is/are the store(s)?
From
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Stefan,
Do you find with these high limits that users get outlook is trying to
retrieve data from the microsoft exchange server message?
As I've increased our limits
Aha! Here it is...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:01 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
There was an article brought
:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Stefan,
Do you find with these high limits that users get outlook is trying to
retrieve data from the microsoft exchange server message?
As I've increased our limits, I see this more and more (cached and non cached
clients, local
Yes most of my users are using many subfolders so the 5,000 limit is not a
problem,
___
Stefan Jafs
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Aha! Here
: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Aha! Here it is...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:01
As long as they are not using 5000 subfolders.
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:26 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Yes most of my users are using many subfolders so the 5,000 limit is not a
problem
Some are getting close, no seriously many have 100 + subfolders.
___
Stefan Jafs
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:10 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
As long
archiving
Least it's not forever
/snicker
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:20 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Limits here are 2Gb, lots of large proposals with large pdf attachments
that people need to keep
-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Nope, not in my opinion...
60MB warn
70MB no send
80MB no receive
except if your an exec, then
200MB limitation
The Exchange server is NOT a file server...
From: David Mazzaccaro
I'll echo that - we're about 60K+ users - retail also.
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:42 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
400 users, retail.
Outlook is a very nice
Atta boy Don!
From: Don Andrews [mailto:don.andr...@safeway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
We tell 'em - save the attachment, delete the email - email is not a
file transfer system nor
Here, it is both a file transfer system and a storage system accessed
through a PIM portal (Outlook in most cases).
From: Don Andrews [mailto:don.andr...@safeway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
We tell 'em - save
archiving
Here, it is both a file transfer system and a storage system accessed through a
PIM portal (Outlook in most cases).
From: Don Andrews [mailto:don.andr...@safeway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
We tell 'em - save
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:27 AM, David Mazzaccaro
david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com wrote:
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
Does it meet your business requirements? If it does, then you're
not being too strict. It's all about
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:32, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
We've found that creating a separate hard disk partition and putting
the OST (and just the OST) on that partition helps a lot. I suspect
part of that is filesystem fragmentation. The Windows defrag utility
can't cope with
and it isn't 1995. We
expect 6 and 8 TB drives by 2013.
From: Campbell, Rob rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:57 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
06 14:03:01 2009
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I have no idea why that question would be relevant. I am really just playing
devil's advocate and I don't have the big company issues that Don has at
safeway.
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system? Especially
.
From: will...@lefkovics.net [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I have no idea why that question would be relevant. I am really just playing
devil's advocate and I don't have the big
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
The transfer problem may never be solved--at least until SMTP v2 comes
out--but I bet if Exchange had a feature like SQL 2008's FILESTREAM then
storage would no longer be an issue. Or maybe yEnc MIME extension will
gain traction
Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
IMHO, using a mailbox for data storage is bad practice because data
files are departmental, and belong on a file server in a departmental
data directory that's permanent and is designed for data storage.
Mailboxes are personal, and are usually
Indeed... it is far better than a lowly file server.
From: John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
Because it's a database
06, 2009 11:20 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
IMHO, using a mailbox for data storage is bad practice because data files
are departmental, and belong on a file server in a departmental data
directory that's permanent and is designed for data storage.
Mailboxes
Defraged your DB lately??
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud
From: will...@lefkovics.net
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Wed May 06 14:51:02 2009
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
.
From: Campbell, Rob rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:57 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I've got users that do that. I ask them if they have a file cabinet
Heh... not here. Exported to PST, burned to CD and stashed away
somewhere...
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:20 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
IMHO, using
So you're trading a filing cabinet for a trash compactor...
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:56 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Indeed, we shouldn't limit storage to one's
:34 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
In some companies mailboxes are not personal - that data is the property
of the company and may be preserved for as long as deemed necessary.
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb
access to that mailbox, and
found a bunch of stuff they shouldn't have had access to.
From: Don Andrews [mailto:don.andr...@safeway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:02 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Here they are personal
)
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2009 10:27 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
I also have deleted item
:* Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:56 PM
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* RE: Exchange archiving
Indeed, we shouldn’t limit storage to one’s mailbox.
Exchange 2010 brings a sort of tiered mailbox to the picture with
rudimentary archiving. It’s like storing your archive.pst on the Exchange
, 2009 1:56 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Indeed, we shoul�t limit storage to one���s mailbox.
Exchange 2010 brings a sort of tiered mailbox to the picture with rudimentary
archiving. It���s like storing your archive.pst on the Exchange Server.
From
AM
Posted To: Exchange List
Conversation: Exchange archiving
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
I also have deleted item retention set for 14 days.
I figured these are pretty typical limits
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
Because it's a database app with performance limits as opposed to a file
server.
[This message is somewhat vague theory, somewhat devil's advocate,
and
versions, allocated fixed files and
managed them for the same reason (I don't know whether that is still an option
or not).
From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:28 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 3:02 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
A Bugatti isn't a semi-truck either.
_
From: will...@lefkovics.net
That registry is well out of date..:)
From: Steve Szabo [mailto:steve...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:45 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
But, a Lamborghini is a truck. See
http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/LM002/index.html and
http
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 17:22, Michael B. Smith
mich...@owa.smithcons.com wrote:
Not intending to delve into the vagaries of the ESE implementation; however,
it is
worthwhile to note that Exchange 2007 changed database internals to flatten
the
database and increase table performance;
before...
From: Kurt Buff [kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:49 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 17:22, Michael B. Smith
mich...@owa.smithcons.com wrote:
Not intending to delve
In my experience, the load on the Exchange server tends to depend on how many
mailboxes are being journaled, the amount of journaling mailboxes, and how much
traffic is being ran through the Exchange server. Based on these factors, I
would say you will probably see about a 5-15% increase in
be archived (moved out of the
store) thus reducing the size, and allowing for lower mailbox limits?
Thx
From: Eric Hanna [mailto:eri...@sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:15 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Thanks for the reply.
We have just started discussing archiving, and while compliancy is a goal, I
suppose it would be nice
Fax: (610) 650-5306
don.gu...@prufoxroach.com
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Thanks for the reply.
We have just started discussing archiving, and while
Every article I've seen that describes horrible performance seems to
be talking about having the journal mailbox on the same Exchange
server as the mailboxes being journaled.
In my experience, journaling should only be turned on if you have a
compliance reason to do so. If that's the case, let
: Exchange archiving
In my experience, the load on the Exchange server tends to depend on how
many mailboxes are being journaled, the amount of journaling mailboxes,
and how much traffic is being ran through the Exchange server. Based on
these factors, I would say you will probably see about a 5
: Exchange archiving
Every article I've seen that describes horrible performance seems to
be talking about having the journal mailbox on the same Exchange
server as the mailboxes being journaled.
In my experience, journaling should only be turned on if you have a
compliance reason to do so. If that's
]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
Messages taken out are just going to leave you with whitespace. While
most of that space will be reused (thus reducing the growth of the
store over time), it will never reduce the size of the store
that not all environments are equal.
-Original Message-
From: James Wells [mailto:jam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:51 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
Every article I've seen that describes horrible performance seems to
be talking about
Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Thanks for the reply.
We have just started discussing archiving, and while compliancy is a goal, I
suppose it would be nice to reduce the size of the store.
I would think that once you have enabled any archiving solution, you will be
reducing your store?
Won't
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I have recently installed the SEA solution. I'm impressed, everything
works, we had a bit of a challenge with RPC / HTTP, we had to get
another certificate etc. but it's all good now and I had any help I
needed from Sunbelt. The setup
: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:43 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
That's good to hear.
I have about 160 users and currently have a 24GB store.
What kind of hardware is SEA running on? processor, storage?
How long
I have about 130 users and a 250GB store Wow.. you must have some strict
limits set.
Bob
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:43 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
That's good to hear.
I have about 160
Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I have about 130 users and a 250GB store Wow.. you must have some strict
limits set.
Bob
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:43 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
That's
Yes I do
__
Stefan Jafs
From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: May-05-09 9:54 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
I have about 130 users and a 250GB store Wow.. you must have some strict
limits set.
Bob
Mailarchiva (open source)
I have about 35 boxes to do, and this looks great! I can set the retention in
Exchange short to keep the DB's small and push everything into this.
Anyone running this that cares to share some setup notes, caveats or anything?
I plan to set it up on CentOS in a VM.
As I haven't looked into what Mailarchiva is or how Mailarchiva works, I was
just doing some research on their website. It looks like you want to go with
the Open Source version. According to their documentation, as how I read it,
that might not be available to do all of your 35 mailboxes
Both seem to be based on Message Journalling - it's just that their
Enterprise version can to talk with multiple Message Journalling
mailboxes on different Exchange servers, while the Open Source or
Community version can only do one server with one Message Journalling
mailbox.
That should be
Services Specialist
Sunbelt Software
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:46 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange Archiving
Both seem to be based on Message Journalling - it's just that their
Enterprise version can
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:46 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange Archiving
Joe,
It depends a bit on the amount of mailboxes. If you get to 100+
a real enterprise strength solution is something you should at
least consider, so here are the specs of our
Mailarchiva (open source)
Mailarchiver (gfi)
Readily available web based archiving system, keeps the store smaller, and
allows users to retrieve and search their own archived mail. Also, in the
case of GFI's product it seems the database for the same amount of mail is
smaller (than exchange
Joe,
It depends a bit on the amount of mailboxes. If you get to 100+
a real enterprise strength solution is something you should at
least consider, so here are the specs of our Exchange Archiver:
http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/Sunbelt-Exchange-Archiver/
Warm regards,
Stu
GFI might be decent for a small environment but it sucks donkey balls
with teeth for medium to large environments.
On 10/26/08, Benjamin Zachary - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mailarchiva (open source)
Mailarchiver (gfi)
Readily available web based archiving system, keeps the store
]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 3:27 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange Archiving
GFI might be decent for a small environment but it sucks donkey balls
with teeth for medium to large environments.
On 10/26/08, Benjamin Zachary - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mailarchiva (open
90 matches
Mail list logo
