If you have a problem, it will be with the ownership of defined objects. For example, two fax servers will both want to define how to handle a freeform address that looks like a phone number. I can't think of any specific conflicts that have to exist by definition in two UM systems, but they are probably in there.
You may get to write the book on incompatibility issues. PS: Rumor has it that ITG is considering a similar change, so MS may already have some insight on this topic that is unpublished. -----Original Message----- From: Sanborn, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Would two UMs play nice together? We have Octel Unified Messenger 4.00 running on Exch5.5 sp4/ NT4 sp6a. We're testing Cisco UM 3.12 on another Organization in the same NT domain. Before banging our heads on the wall[1], we wanted to find out if Octel and Cisco UMs would even work together in the same Organization for the transition? Or is it a either/ or deal? It seems to me that with them using different connectors, there shouldn't be an issue. And once in Exchange it's 'just another message' and up to the client to display the message correctly. [1] ain't that why they give us these nice soft partitions? Or are they just getting us use to the idea of padded cells? Thanks John Sanborn Exchange Administrator AZ Army National Guard (602) 267-2981 _________________________________________________________________ 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
