Thanks man, great idea! Lots of tasks in there.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: maandag 27 november 2006 22:33
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 management tasks overview
You could
You could do worse than the Exchange Server Cookbook. It's got most of the
common management and support tasks. There is no spreadsheet showing all the
tasksbut there is an index :-)
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/exchangeckbk/
Tony
-- Original Message
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dryden, Karen
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004
2:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New mailboxes not created
See if the mailbox
got stamped with an address. If it did, then the RUS did that.
-Original Message-
From
.
Thanks a lot everyone for your help.
Jared Manhat
Systems Administrator
Accutest Laboratories
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mulnick, Al
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004
11:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New
likely.
joe
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared
ManhatSent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:40 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 -
New mailboxes not created
Well, I figured it out.
One of the geniuss here removed DNS from our DC acting
Title: Exchange 2003 - New mailboxes not created
Not really a fix for your problem,but
you sendane-mail to the mailboxby manually
enteringthe SMTP
address, then Exchange will create the mailbox for
you...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared
ManhatSent:
Title: Exchange 2003 - New mailboxes not created
There isn't a comprehensive list of sp1 fixes - but I
recommend strongly you install it, plus the recent OWA rollup that was
released.
So the mailboxes NEVER show up? Or they are just
delayed?
If they never show up - I'd check out my RUS
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004
9:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New mailboxes not created
There isn't a comprehensive list of sp1
fixes - but I recommend strongly you
Title: Exchange 2003 - New mailboxes not created
Sounds like Michael's suggestion of checking
RUSshould beyour next step.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared
ManhatSent: 19 November 2004 14:55To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003
the Exchange had already picked your dummy
userfrom AD?
Vriendelijke groeten / Best regards,
Frederic Allaert
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared
ManhatSent: vrijdag 19 november 2004 15:55To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 -
New
: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New mailboxes not created
There isn't a comprehensive list of sp1
fixes - but I recommend strongly you install it, plus the recent OWA rollup
that was released.
So the mailboxes NEVER show up? Or they
are just delayed?
If they never show up - I'd check out
PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New mailboxes not created
Whats RUS?
Jared Manhat
Systems Administrator
Accutest Laboratories
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004
9:36 AM
To: [EMAIL
] On Behalf Of Jared Manhat
Sent: 19 November 2004 16:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New mailboxes not created
Whats RUS?
Jared Manhat
Systems
Administrator
Accutest Laboratories
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael
Title: Exchange 2003 - New mailboxes not created
Recipient Update Server
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jared Manhat
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004
9:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 - New
Joe: Honestly you shouldn't install Exchange or any back offfice products on domain controllers.
May I know what's the reason ? I'm curious.
thank you,
lara La vie, voyez-vous, ca n'est jamais si bon ni si
(in effect) running on one machine.
3. Did I mention point of failure?
jlc
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lara Adianto
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004
9:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] exchange
2003 dcpromo
Joe: Honestly you
Honestly you shouldn't install Exchange or any back offfice
products on domain controllers.
Other than that I am kind of confused by your post... You
demoted a machine that I take was also running Exchange and then you rebuilt it
from the beginning? What does that mean, did you reload the
Check out http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;821915
Dennis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Philadelphia,
Lynden - Revios Toronto
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:23 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [ActiveDir]
Title: Message
Exchange 2003 doesn't include the optimizer, you use the
ESM:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;821915Product=exch2003
-Original Message-From: Philadelphia,
Lynden - Revios Toronto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004
thanks
Lynden
-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003
Check out http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;821915
Dennis
-Original Message
How to Move Exchange Databases and Logs in Exchange Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=821915product=exch2003
Tony
-- Original Message --
From: Philadelphia, Lynden - Revios Toronto[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
implementation. Smaller ones may be able to withstand the overhead).
Al
-Original Message-
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 6:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 Question
Use Exmerge. I believe
Use Exmerge. I believe it is in the Exchange support tools for 2000 and
2003.
Denny
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Shaff
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 6:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 Question
/2004 6:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 Question
Use Exmerge. I believe it is in the Exchange support tools for 2000 and
2003.
Denny
-Original Message-
From
-Germany,ex1)
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 8:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 DL
Thanks for the clarification Joe - now we just need to get the UI to support
it, as these medium companies tend to use the UI a lot ;-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Message-
From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Samstag, 27. März 2004 23:55
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 DL
They need WP (Write Property) on the member attribute of the group.
Assuming the following
OU: GroupTestOU
Delegated Admin Group: joe\TestOU
a single users or contact.
/Guido
-Original Message-
From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Montag, 29. März 2004 02:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 DL
I was actually pretty unhappy when I saw this functionality. You should
almost NEVER place single users
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
We are trying that route, however they can be very stubborn some times.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rutherford, Robert
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:41 AM
They need WP (Write Property) on the member attribute of the group.
Assuming the following
OU: GroupTestOU
Delegated Admin Group: joe\TestOU-GroupTestOU-GrpAdmin
You can use the following DSACLS command on the OU to delegate the ability
to change membership to all groups within the OU.
? At least that way you could say it's their firewall and they need
to update it to gain performance?
-Original Message-
From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 March 2004 19:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
I believe their firewall is using NAT. There is no IPSEC anywhere.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003
that way you could say it's their firewall and they need
to update it to gain performance?
-Original Message-
From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 March 2004 19:01
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
No it is a private T1, point
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 March 2004 08:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
It wont be a port issue as you wouldn't gain connectivity at all... If
it is a very old firewall then chances are that it may be causing
issues Will they drop
Is this on the same physical site?
-Original Message-
From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 March 2004 14:58
To: ActiveDir (E-mail)
Subject: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
I have a facilities that insists on having a very old 3Com Firewall
between our
Physically the two orgs are connected by a T1 Line.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rutherford, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:16 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
, Justin A.
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
Physically the two orgs are connected by a T1 Line.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Rutherford
I take it this is a public T1 over the internet, comms via a VPN?
-Original Message-
From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 March 2004 17:35
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
Physically the two orgs are connected by a T1
No it is a private T1, point to point.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rutherford, Robert
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
I take
] On Behalf Of Salandra,
Justin A.
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
No it is a private T1, point to point.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rutherford,
Robert
:RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
400+ Outlook clients over a T1. Have you looked at the bandwidth
utilization? Sounds like the T1 is saturated to me. What about subnet
in the remote office? Is it assigned to the correct site for
authentication?
-Original Message-
From
]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 and Firewalls
Justin,
Check to see which Global Catalog server these clients are trying to
get at. Go to the Outlook Address Book, GAL, right clickProperties. That
will identify the current GC in use. Connections to it may be blocked by
the firewall
Microsoft's Exchange 2003 Technical Library is superb. Much
more so than in past versions.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/2003/library/default.mspx
I don't know of any Exchange list that is as high-level and
in-depth as this one is for A/D. If you find one, please let
Title: Message
I
subscribe to 2 Exchange newsgroups. Both have good people participating in
them and cover any flavor of Exchange.
Try:
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kent Maxwell
Sent: 20 February 2004 06:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 Migration Question
Nicolas,
Thank you very much! I found your
email very informative! We are going to be doing
: Friday, February 20, 2004
3:19 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 Migration Question
Kent
There's a number of
factor you need to consider here, and three of the biggest one's that come to
mind are co-existence, user profile re-pointing, and freezing
Title: Exchange 2003 Migration Question
I have used the Exchange 2003 Migration Wizard (bundled
with the installation), granted that my migration scenario was Exchange 2000
Exchange 2003, but I don't suppose there would be much difference as far as
the IS is concerned.
The only dilemma
used.
-Original
Message-
From: Michael Wassell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004
10:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 Migration Question
I have used the Exchange
2003 Migration Wizard (bundled with the installation), granted
]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003
Migration Question
Why
would you lose e-mails, since both are in the same exchange organization, SMTP
and the IMS/MTA should have been able to deliver e-mails to anyone regardless of
which server was sent the message based on what version of the MX
Title: Exchange 2003 Migration Question
Oh okay, thanks
-Original
Message-
From: Michael Wassell
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004
1:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange
2003 Migration Question
They were in 2 seperate
Title: Exchange 2003 Migration Question
Your welcome. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that
:-)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Salandra, Justin
A.Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:23 PMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003
Migration
The behaviour you're describing is a little different than what the directory
access whitepaper describes; it claims that DSProxy removes GCs from the
working GC list that are in nonlocal DOMAINS, so that it ends up with a list of
up to ten GCs from the same site and DOMAIN as the Exchange
Since my original post, I've done further research into this (I can't do any
lab testing at the moment because our lab's in the process of being rebuilt for
our formal Proof of Concept the end of this week).
I was reading the Understanding and Troubleshooting Directory Access
Yes your description of what dsaccess/proxy does is what we understand.
However non-local simply means GCs not in the site that the exchange server
is in.
If you have GCs that are DCs from multiple domain within a single site, ANY
one of the GCs could be what gets returned to the clients.
I.E.
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
date:Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:14:17
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 DL Management in a multi-domain forest
Good Morning:
Long time lurker, 1st time poster :-) This topic was somewhat covered in a
thread
://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;328791
Regards,
Jacqui
from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
date:Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:14:17
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange 2003 DL Management in a multi-domain
forest
Good Morning:
Long
Yes you absolutely will run into the issue.
The problem has nothing to do with load, it is how DSPROXY hands out GC's to
clients. If you have GC's from multiple domains in the site where your
exchange servers are, the exchange servers will have them all (up to I think
25 or something like that)
No, by default as an Exchange admin you should NOT be able
to access mailboxes of other people. That's an Exchange 2000
feature.
Additionally, you can be an Exchange admin for one AG and
not for another which may result in your errors.
there's a kb that talks about how to grant the service
57 matches
Mail list logo
