Yep. Once they fix some of the bugs, Outlook 11 is the ticket. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Tuip [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
> Without going directly into the OST/PST discussion I would suggest to look > at the new Outlook 11 coming up on the horizon. A lot of new features have > to do with slow links. > > ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with > Exchange 2003 ** > -------------------------- > Martin Tuip > MVP Exchange > Exchange 2000 List owner > www.exchange-mail.org > www.sharepointserver.com > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Neil Doody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:34 AM > Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith > > > Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange > strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy > includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this > highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal > Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way > they are getting backed up. > > The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k > ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can > scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, > but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p > > Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is > out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. > Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small > test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal > candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it > completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising > folders over an 64k link. > > Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal > Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline > folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you > make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised > with the server? > > > > Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working > with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how > irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im > in for if I move to this solution. > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
