LegacyExchangeDN is OK to change as long as you keep it unique. The only concern that I have is that one would need to use ADSIEdit or a similar tool to play with it, and that may be dangeours if someone is not careful.
It is not working in the case at hand because this guy transplanted all the mailboxes from one Exchange organization to another, not the usual migration method. So the mailboxes in the new Exchange organization have gotten the default LegacyExchangeDN that reflect the names of the new Exchange org. And the old message reply-tos refer to the old Exchange org DNs. -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Validation of migration concept I understand what its there for. I also understand that in the case at hand, its not working as expected. It might be providing some other functionality, however, that editing might break. A far safer approach is to add an additional address rather than munging an existing one. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov@;innerhost.com] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:07 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Validation of migration concept > > > LegacyExchangeDN in Exchange exists specifically for this > reason - if you want to make an object look like it came from > a legacy Exchange 5.5 server > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 11:22 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Validation of migration concept > > > I'd suggest adding the X500 rather than changing the > legacyExchangeDN. Its > probably in that format for a reason. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov@;innerhost.com] > > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 10:17 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Validation of migration concept > > > > > > Which one is better? > > making x500 addresses or changing the LegacyExchangeDN field > > to look like the DN from Exchange 5.5 ? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Webb, Andy [mailto:Andy.Webb@;swinc.com] > > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 5:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Validation of migration concept > > > > > > Slight revision - Add an x500 (case is significant) proxy address to > > each user that matches their distinguished name from the old > > 5.5 server. > > For example: > > x500:/o=Vang/ou=ExchangeSite/cn=Recipients/cn=<user> > > > > It ought to match the legacyExchangeDN value, but it is > possible since > > you created a new environment that it won't. Don't try and make it > > match in that case. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Julian Stone [mailto:julian.stone@;netstore.net] > > Posted At: Friday, October 18, 2002 12:28 AM > > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > > Conversation: Validation of migration concept > > Subject: RE: Validation of migration concept > > > > > > In reverse order: > > > > 2. Add an X500 address to each user that points to the old > 5.5 server. > > > > 1. After the above is applied, some of the problems may be resolved, > > other than that ensure that name resolution at each client > is working > > correctly, if not add a 'hosts' entry. > > > > Yours, > > > > Julian Stone > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Soren Larsen [mailto:SwynkExchangeDiscussionList@;vang.org] > > Sent: 17 October 2002 20:19 pm > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Validation of migration concept > > > > > > Hello > > > > Having just been through an Exchange 5.5 -> 2000 migration, > I need to > > ask a few questions. > > > > It was chosen to create an new Exchange 2000 organization and > > not reuse > > the old Exchange 5.5. I don't know the reasons for this > > design decision > > - I just had to do the task. > > > > The way I did it was to install the Exchange 2000 organization (1 > > server, 1 site), configure all the required options, mail enable the > > users, and finally migrate the user mailboxes from Exchange 5.5 to > > Exchange 2000 with the Migration Wizard. > > > > Migration of the 15 GB mailboxes went smooth with the exception that > > Migration Wizard forgot some items in about 10 mailboxes. > > > > Now when the new Exchange system has gone into production we are > > experiencing some very strange and pretty serious problems > > productivity > > wise. > > > > 1. Users are experiencing problems in their Outlook 98 mail > > client (yes, > > I know, not exactly latest technology). Everything from > > Outlook hanging > > for minutes, to Outlook freezing totally. Lots of errors > like "Object > > not found" is given when opening items and using > functionality in the > > Outlook 98 client. All users had new MAPI profiles created > > and the forms > > cache emptied. Anybody on the list has suggestions to what > I can do to > > debug further on the problem? > > > > 2. Users can't reply to old messages migrated from the old > > 5.5 server. I > > was told that Exchange 2000 would recalculate the old Distinguished > > Names in the mail messages, but this has not happened, as the > > users are > > replying to the old addresses from the 5.5 organization. Can I do > > anything to solve this issue? > > > > Are there any known issues in running Outlook 98 against an Exchange > > 2000 server that could cause my problem? > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Soren > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
