"Our users are limited to 30 meg each, which for 90%
of the corporation, this is more than sufficient."
If people are bending or breaking the rules to work
around it, that should be an indication that it is not
more than sufficient.
Any e-mail worth retaining belongs in the Information
Store.
Ed Crowley
Compaq Computer
--- "Gomez, Mary Lou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No you are not confused...I apparently am just
> completely wrong. I've taken
> this over recently (thrown into the fire so to speak
> when the virus hit us
> last week). Based upon the documentation I am trying
> to quickly read over
> left by my predecessor, the reasoning for the
> personal folders kept on a
> separate server (which does get backed up daily)
> seemed to make sense. As
> for being a "smarty pants", that's not what I was
> trying to be but I guess
> working on about 3 hrs sleep each night, it'll come
> across as that so I
> apologize. I watched this scan practically the whole
> 30 hours, waiting to
> see if any infected files would show up. Only while
> watching each mailboxes'
> folders scroll, did I notice the "extra" folders
> showing up. As I said,
> based on everything I've read so far & been told,
> (not by Microsoft), this
> was wrong & when pointed out, I was asked to find
> out why. We are a small
> company (650 users) plus various resource (meeting
> room) mailboxes. Our
> users are limited to 30 meg each, which for 90% of
> the corporation, this is
> more than sufficient. We block certain types of
> files, addresses, content,
> etc. GroupShield appears to work well for us but I
> did come across a
> document suggesting we move to Antigen.
>
> I thank y'all for your time and help and am working
> on getting myself into
> an Exchange class asap.
> Mary Lou
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Linton Smith (WBTQ)
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:37 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: # of folders in mailboxes
>
> I guess I'm confused now. Let's get our
> terminology
> aligned. As you
> pointed out, there are three types of "stores":
> Exchange
> Mailbox, Exchange
> Public Folders, and PSTs.
>
> Let's focus on the Exchange Mailbox. Within an
> Exchange
> mailbox, a user may
> choose to create additional folders anywhere
> within the
> hierarchy - i.e.
> under the Inbox, under Sent Items, or under
> "Outlook Today"
> putting it at
> the same level in the hierarchy as the Inbox.
> Irrespective
> of the folder's
> location in the hierarchy, it is part of the
> Exchange
> Mailbox. GroupShield
> will scan any and all folders within the Exchange
> Mailbox,
> irrespective of
> its location in the hierarchy. All mail,
> irrespective of
> the folder it is
> moved to, counts against the user's limits as long
> as it is
> still in the
> Exchange Mailbox.
>
> As long as the user is still within his or her
> limits, why
> do you care how
> many folders he or she uses?
>
> There is a long list of reasons for not using
> PSTs.
> However, I think there
> are two that specifically apply in your case:
>
> 1) Exchange uses Single Instance Storage. This
> means
> that a message
> sent to 10 people on your server does not result
> in 10
> copies, but only one,
> stored on the server. When you move the message
> to a PST,
> you've created a
> copy of it, resulting in more overall disk space
> required
> (if all 10 people
> move the message to PSTs, you now have 10 copies).
> Given
> that you have
> users create PSTs in their home directories (which
> is on
> another server, I
> assume) you are forcing users to utilize far more
> server
> disk space than you
> would if you just left it in the Exchange Mailbox.
>
> 2) Mail stored in the Exchange Mailbox is
> available to
> GroupShield for
> scanning. Isn't this a Good Thing? [1] It's
> possible that
> you have mail
> harbouring trojans, worms, virii etc. previously
> unknown to
> the virus
> scanning community. Once it is discovered, and a
> DAT is
> released, you can
> perform an on-demand scan to check for it. If
> it's in PSTs,
> your desktop
> scanner is your only line of defense, and this
> would only be
> invoked when
> the user actually opened the message/attachment.
> Tell me
> honestly - are you
> certain all your desktop scanners are running 100%
> of the
> time, with the
> latest engines and DAT?
>
> I would sincerely encourage you to review your
> fixed mailbox
> size policy.
> If the mail is worth keeping (and for some users,
> it will
> be), then the best
> place for it is in the Exchange Server Mailbox
> store.
> Seriously - get rid
> of all and any PSTs.
>
> Linton
>
> [1] tm - Chris Scharff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomez, Mary Lou
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 3:04 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: # of folders in mailboxes
>
>
> "I" am not confused. As I stated in the previous
> response, I
> specifically
> described the folders I was seeing and where they
> were
> located. And yes, I
> do know the difference between the mailbox folders
> and
> personal folders. I
> did not scan for their personal folders, only the
> mailbox
> folders
> themselves. The scan (GroupShield's On Demand
> Scanner) only
> scans the
> top-level folders which includes any newly created
> folders
> the users have
> added. We do tell them to sort their mail into
> personal
> folders if they
> insist on keeping "everything" but we ask them to
> keep them
> on their Home
> drive. This way, they can keep their mailbox sizes
> down to
> well below our
> corporate standard limit.
>
> Who cares? I, along with management now care
> because we have
> people who are
> not adhering to our standard. With the virus hit
> we took
> last week, we are
> working on strictly enforcing all of our
> standards. Exchange
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
