RE: isnje?
I've managed to work out what it is. IS = Information store, NJE is concerned with logical units and SNA. Presumably isnje joins the two. If it couldn't run for some reason - which is what happened yesterday - SNA won't work with exchange, which in turn means the connection services for PROFS calendars and mail can't run, hence why the conncetor failed. A reboot sorted the problem out, though whether the failing is derived from some activity on the mainframe or the Exchange server has yet to be ascertained. Thanks for your assistance. -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc;dc-resources.net] Sent: 31 October 2002 15:37 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: isnje? Start:Find:Files and folders named isnje.exe. Get properties, go to version tab. What does it say there? -Original Message- From: Busby, Jacob [mailto:jacob.busby;hants.gov.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: isnje? Anybody recognise the program: isnje.exe? Is so what does it do? We had an error this morning regarding it when our PROFS/Exchange connector collapsed and a dialogue box seemed to indicate that this might be the fault, but I've never heard of it, and a search of the web only seemed to bring up Polish web-pages. _ 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]
SDK
Hi, I have been following the KB article Q317680 to create a cutom disclaimer. It says you need to install the SDK to be able to register the Event sink and you get the tools to do this when installing the Exchange SDK. I have installed the SDK Tools and not a script in sight that will help me! Where do I get the right bit of Exchange 2000 SDK for this please? Regards, Stuart. _ 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]
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
And you're not buying core CALs why? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Ah...but that's okay. I'm already at Win2k or XP on all my clients and servers. The upgrade to SP3 from Win2k SP2 is free. And it's possible that I did misread the previous statement. But going to .NET/Titanium and an AD Structure, from our current Win2k / Ex5.5 / NT 4.0 domain model, will be quite spendy. Heck, it just cost me $54k to get our Outlook CAL's up to snuff, because you can't buy Ex5.5 CAL's anymore. They wouldn't listen to me last August, when you could still get those for ~$13/ea. Now, they're up to ~$67/ea for an Ex5.5/E2k CAL! -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hell, they're going to make you upgrade to W2K Sp3 or XP for Office 11 too... -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use OL11?! How freakin' stupid is that? It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5. Talk about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers... That's it! I'm done playing! I'm gonna move our whole organization to one Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro! Phhhppptt! -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I am pretty sure you are correct. -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too. You can't run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Has it been announced? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11? Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the hardware used to run it. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hypothetically, if Microsoft came out with new technology that would make MAPI obsolete (something like front-end/back-end OWA with all the features of Outlook), would you then toss out the VPN and stop charging customers for it? I am still hoping that something like this will be available, but then if I invest in VPN technologies it would be a waste of money. -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:julian.stone;netstore.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook We also allow Mapi across the internet, but with VPN systems for those customers who are willing to pay for the added security. Some customers have even requested got non HTTPS OWA access, where their password is sent in clear text !! Yours, Julian Stone Exchange 2000 Consultant and Webmaster Sent from Microsoft Exchange 2000 SP3 build 6249.4 Netstore - Europe's Leading Application Service Provider Tel:+44 (0) 1344 444349 Mobile: +44 (0) 7710 122 312 Fax:+44 (0) 207 681 1238 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LOCATION: http://www.netstore.net/contact/location.htm HomePage: http://www.netstore.net/ -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: 30 October 2002 17:22 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Been like this for 2 years
RE: Exchange Internet Mail Connector and Relaying
That probably will never bounce - try using a real from address. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Ed Esgro [mailto:EdE;stainsafe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Internet Mail Connector and Relaying This is my telnet session Helo stainsafe.com Mail from: Rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No denial message. -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams;gettyimages.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Internet Mail Connector and Relaying Are you giving a local host or an external host name as your send from? -Original Message- From: Ed Esgro [mailto:EdE;stainsafe.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Internet Mail Connector and Relaying Hello group. I am using Exchange 5.5 server with service pack 4. This server has the SMTP interface installed and it being used to route SMTP mail. For the life of me I can not figure out why this server is allowing SMTP mail to relay. I have the option Do not reroute incoming SMTP mail checked. I have restarted the IMS a few times. But when I telnet and send an email to a hotmail address, I do not get an error stating relaying is denied. It sends the message through. Is there anything that I am missing that is allowing mail to relay? *This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Stainsafe Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.* _ 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] === This email and its contents are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose or use the information within this email or its attachments. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately. Thank you. === _ 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] *This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you have received this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Stainsafe Inc. or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.* _ 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]
RE: Interesting EX2K migration solution
That would work, yes. Its not a good design, but assuming you have DNS configured correctly, it should work. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:Alex.Alborzfard;VISIONICS.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Interesting EX2K migration solution Our company runs EX 5.5 in 2 separate Organizations NT domains, as well as 2 separate locations. To save in migration cost to EX2K, they've decided to migrate to EX2K/W2K/AD in only 1 location and move all the mailboxes from other location there. The other location will retain its NT domain scheme, however these users will have to log on the remote W2K domain now, to access EX2K, across a Frame Relay (1024kbps). I thought there has to be a local GC in each location for this work, but obviously that's not possible in an NT4 domain. So I'm just wondering, will this work?! Thanks _ 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]
RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message
That's why its best to use the alias for the initial OWA login screen. That's guaranteed unique at least. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Elmerick, Ralph H. [mailto:elmerick;timken.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message We have this problem when the surname is not unique therefore in my case there is more than one Elmerick in the company and therefore I have to key in Elmerick, Ralph and then it works because it then can find my unique userid as opposed to Elmerick, Rose. Ralph H. Elmerick NT/Exchange Administrator 330-471-3409 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message What versions?? Here is the OWA5.5 Troubleshooting whitepaper: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=/support/exchan ge/content /whitepapers/owa_tshoot.aspFR=0 For access is denied: Access Is Denied When you log on and try to type authentication credentials, you may be repeatedly prompted with Windows NT Authentication dialog boxes, or you may immediately get the error message Access is Denied . To troubleshoot this error message, perform the following steps: The password may have been typed incorrectly. Retype the password and double check the spelling, being sure to check capitalization and so forth. The user name may have been typed incorrectly. Retype the user name, double checking capitalization, and so forth. Use the Domain\Username format. You may not have the Log on Locally right on the IIS server. To correct this, perform Step 1 in the Server Configuration Checklist section at the beginning of this document. For more information on this specific error message, please see the following articles in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: Q169649 XWEB: Access Is Denied Using the Web Client Q173470 XCLN: Troubleshooting Failed to get Inbox Error Message Q166401 Error Message: Error: Access Is Denied William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Vos Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message Hi, I have this problem with my OWA implementation. Only members of the admin goup can run OWA from their clients workstation. I have granted all the other domain users with all the neccessary permissions, still no dice. can anyone assist on what steps tyo take further. my Exchane server is a DC, maybe I should make it a member server, will that solve the problem finally without compromising any thing. Someone help please regards Vic _ _ 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] ** This message and any attachments are intended for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this communication to others; also please notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. The Timken Company ** _ 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]
Working Offline
Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
Well, if they are offline, how are they going to access the other folder? You can always create groups for offline synch, but you still have to add any newly created folder to that group if you want it included. -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
RE: Interesting EX2K migration solution
Thanks for the response Roger. So what are the possible pitfalls of this design; e.g performance, etc.? By DNS configured correctly you mean the public DNS MX records, right or are you talking about internal one too? --Alex -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 7:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Interesting EX2K migration solution That would work, yes. Its not a good design, but assuming you have DNS configured correctly, it should work. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:Alex.Alborzfard;VISIONICS.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Interesting EX2K migration solution Our company runs EX 5.5 in 2 separate Organizations NT domains, as well as 2 separate locations. To save in migration cost to EX2K, they've decided to migrate to EX2K/W2K/AD in only 1 location and move all the mailboxes from other location there. The other location will retain its NT domain scheme, however these users will have to log on the remote W2K domain now, to access EX2K, across a Frame Relay (1024kbps). I thought there has to be a local GC in each location for this work, but obviously that's not possible in an NT4 domain. So I'm just wondering, will this work?! Thanks _ 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]
RE: Interesting EX2K migration solution
Thanks Ed, I just wanted to know if it would work. If by headaches you mean performance issues, they already know and willing to accept it. Unless there'll be other issues as well. --Alex -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Interesting EX2K migration solution This is a consulting engagement question. That is, it's really the kind of question that deserves more consideration than this kind of forum allows. Having said that, the scheme you describe could possibly work. It's even possible that you could make it work with your users logging in to the NT4 domain. But to tell you anything more than it's possible, I'd need to know a lot more. You really ought to pay for a good design. It'd probably save you a lot of headaches in the end. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Alex Alborzfard Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 9:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Interesting EX2K migration solution Our company runs EX 5.5 in 2 separate Organizations NT domains, as well as 2 separate locations. To save in migration cost to EX2K, they've decided to migrate to EX2K/W2K/AD in only 1 location and move all the mailboxes from other location there. The other location will retain its NT domain scheme, however these users will have to log on the remote W2K domain now, to access EX2K, across a Frame Relay (1024kbps). I thought there has to be a local GC in each location for this work, but obviously that's not possible in an NT4 domain. So I'm just wondering, will this work?! Thanks _ 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]
RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message
Not guaranteed to be unique or unambiguous. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 11/1/2002 6:34 AM Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message That's why its best to use the alias for the initial OWA login screen. That's guaranteed unique at least. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Elmerick, Ralph H. [mailto:elmerick;timken.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message We have this problem when the surname is not unique therefore in my case there is more than one Elmerick in the company and therefore I have to key in Elmerick, Ralph and then it works because it then can find my unique userid as opposed to Elmerick, Rose. Ralph H. Elmerick NT/Exchange Administrator 330-471-3409 _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
We have a similar setup... 40% of my users work at other locations and use offline folders to improve Outlook performance. We also auto synch their folders. We have configured Outlook to ask the user whether they want to work offline or connect when Outlook starts, so if they are interested in using an Outlook feature that doesn't work in offline mode such as non-synched folders private and public folders, view free/busy info, opening other users' folders, or OOA, they simply restart Outlook in Connected mode. Aaron -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
X.400 issues
Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
MessageLab's managed email security service feedback
Hello! Is anyone using MessagLab's Managed Email security service now? Or have you used the service in the past? If so, can you share you experience with their service? Good or bad? Our management is interested in using them to catch viruses and filter SPAM emails. Of course, this would be in addition to our Exchange AV software on our Exchange servers. Thank you in advance, Brian _ 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]
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
Um... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the firewall? And why are you using lmhost to connect to the Exchange server? Drew Nicholson Technical Writer Network Engineer LAN Manager RapidApp 312-372-7188 (work) 312-543-0008 (cell) Born To Edit -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:RTener;midship.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes I can connect to the vpn and read email from the exchange server. I can find the exchange server if I look for it through search for computers on network. We use lmhost file to connect to the exchange server. My VPN server is the primary domain contoller and when i search for it on the network i cant find it. But if i go to my firewall over the internet and enter a username and password to bypass it I can find any computer on the network. I want to be able to search for all computers on my network without bypassing the firewall. If anyone knows what port to open or what to do i would appreciate it. thanks rich ps sorry for hijacking this thread. -Original Message- From: Byron Kennedy [mailto:byron;markettools.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Does the vpn work in general from behind the firewall? Do other protocols like icmp work? Is the vpn site-to-site or client-gateway? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:RTener;midship.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Does anyone know what port I would have to open on my sonic wall to let people browse the network over the vpn. If i bypass my firewall at home i can search for computers on my the network but if i dont i cannot find any computers rich\\\thanks -Original Me ssage- _ 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]
Re: Working Offline
This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook. Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K though. - Original Message - From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Working Offline If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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
Re: X.400 issues
I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
So if you, say, have 20 users in a remote office, using a high estimate, they would need a total of 160K for outlook. In that scenario, why bother with offline folders and forcing users to synchronize? Even our remote dialup users still use outlook online for the added functionality. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Working Offline This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook. Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K though. - Original Message - From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Working Offline If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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]
RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message
But SMTP addresses are (unique at least) and work quite well in OWA. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:35 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message Not guaranteed to be unique or unambiguous. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 11/1/2002 6:34 AM Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message That's why its best to use the alias for the initial OWA login screen. That's guaranteed unique at least. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Elmerick, Ralph H. [mailto:elmerick;timken.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message We have this problem when the surname is not unique therefore in my case there is more than one Elmerick in the company and therefore I have to key in Elmerick, Ralph and then it works because it then can find my unique userid as opposed to Elmerick, Rose. Ralph H. Elmerick NT/Exchange Administrator 330-471-3409 _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
Yes I have wins set up on the ras server. -Original Message- From: Allan Johnson [mailto:allan;teaminfo.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook OK confusion and headache aside from trying to visualize your environment from your emails. 1. Do you have a Sonicwall firewall and/or MS PPTP Server? 2. A number of times in this thread (my reply included) a WINS server has been mentioned, yet you keep referring to LMHOSTS files. Do you know if you have a WINS server? As a number of people have said, your answer is to connect to a firewall via VPN and have a WINS server available to perform name resolution for you, thus removing the need for your LMHOSTS file and resolving other PCs in the domain. There are more elegant and functional solutions but that is probably the simplest and easiest for you to implement. As an aside http://www.mcseco-op.com/_vti_bin/shtml.exe/rules.htm is a link that includes instructions on how to submit to an MCSE study list (Saluki). Many generic questions such as yours are fielded by MCSEs and students and there is no off topic subjects as long as it involves an MS product in some way. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:RTener;midship.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes I can connect to the vpn and read email from the exchange server. I can find the exchange server if I look for it through search for computers on network. We use lmhost file to connect to the exchange server. My VPN server is the primary domain contoller and when i search for it on the network i cant find it. But if i go to my firewall over the internet and enter a username and password to bypass it I can find any computer on the network. I want to be able to search for all computers on my network without bypassing the firewall. If anyone knows what port to open or what to do i would appreciate it. thanks rich ps sorry for hijacking this thread. -Original Message- From: Byron Kennedy [mailto:byron;markettools.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Does the vpn work in general from behind the firewall? Do other protocols like icmp work? Is the vpn site-to-site or client-gateway? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:RTener;midship.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Does anyone know what port I would have to open on my sonic wall to let people browse the network over the vpn. If i bypass my firewall at home i can search for computers on my the network but if i dont i cannot find any computers rich\\\thanks -Original Me ssage- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Would you like me to give you an example? we are a hosting company. Customers connect to our Exchange servers from all over the world, from a variety of client OSes. Their machines are not members of our domain. They can't possibly use our WINS. What would you do to allow their PCs to resolve the short name of our Exchange server? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook No there aren't. There are times in which its easier than doing it a different way, but that doesn't mean there are times in which they must be used. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook there are some situations when one must use HOSTS file. -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Neither, use WINS and DNS, works every time... -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:RBHATIA;AIIM.ORG] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Is it the LMHOSTS file or the HOSTS file ? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:RTener;midship.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook yes you should use the lmhost file on the client pc to map to your exchange server thats what we use here at my office and it works good. If you need more help dont hesitate to email me. rich -Original
RE: MessageLab's managed email security service feedback
Brian, We have been using the anti-virus service since late 1999, and it is very good. We have had no infected messages into our Exchange system in that time. We have about 150 recipient addresses and typically 20 to 30 messages are intercepted per week. Cost is an issue at £1 per e-mail address but we feel it's money well spent. They also seem to react well to new infections, but do occasionally get a false detect on a message and trap it incorrectly. We havn't tried the anti-spam service but I'd recommend the anti-virus. Regards, Mike Scott EPS -Original Message- From: Brian Ko [mailto:bksh;attbi.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 15:01 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MessageLab's managed email security service feedback Hello! Is anyone using MessagLab's Managed Email security service now? Or have you used the service in the past? If so, can you share you experience with their service? Good or bad? Our management is interested in using them to catch viruses and filter SPAM emails. Of course, this would be in addition to our Exchange AV software on our Exchange servers. Thank you in advance, Brian _ 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] This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ? No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server. -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ? No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
I do get 57/289/1290/9202 on one of the other remote servers. FYI: these 2 servers that I am having all the issues with are both on the West Coast while the hub is on the East Coast. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues No, however I am getting a lot of 9202 errors on the remote server. -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:miles.atkinson;bakerhughes.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Any other events logged such as Event ID 57 ? No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
That'll all change with Outlook 11 one hopes. Perhaps a 2k per user limit will be sufficient. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook. Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K though. - Original Message - From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Working Offline If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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:
RE: Working Offline
Because total bandwidth and available bandwidth are two entirely different animals. -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions So if you, say, have 20 users in a remote office, using a high estimate, they would need a total of 160K for outlook. In that scenario, why bother with offline folders and forcing users to synchronize? Even our remote dialup users still use outlook online for the added functionality. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Working Offline This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook. Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K though. - Original Message - From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Working Offline If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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
RE: Working Offline
And no one has mentioned latency... Latency can have a huge impact on network performance. Bandwidth is only part of the equation. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Because total bandwidth and available bandwidth are two entirely different animals. -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions So if you, say, have 20 users in a remote office, using a high estimate, they would need a total of 160K for outlook. In that scenario, why bother with offline folders and forcing users to synchronize? Even our remote dialup users still use outlook online for the added functionality. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Working Offline This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook. Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K though. - Original Message - From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Working Offline If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe:
Re: X.400 issues
Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these internal emails. - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
This is all internal. The MSKB articles point to a mis-configured firewall but there are no firewalls involved. Thus why I am so stumped. I've been banging on this for 2 weeks now. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Once it leaves the server you are at the mercy of the internet. Or are these internal emails. - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: X.400 issues No, however I occasionally get complaints that it take too long. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues I would investigate if your having any issues with the network itself. Has anyone complain they didn't get there mail sent? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
When I had similar issues between the core Exchange servers in Houston and a remote one in Italy, that the queues in the MTAs would bunch up behind a large message. After extensive Exchange troubleshooting (in vain) it turned out we had a dirty WAN circuit - when that was replaced mail flow returned to normal. Strange thing was that it appeared fine, Terminal services to the remote box didn't bomb and pings were fine [1], although it transpired that the circuit was dropping a hell of a lot of packets. Concentrate on troubleshooting the network, I'd be surprised if it's an Exchange issue [1] Crude I know. Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) _ 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]
RE: RBL's
Interesting article on one persons problems with getting listed on a RBL: http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2896281,00.h tml -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Darcy Adams Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's For as long as I've been the person responsible for checking the postmaster mailbox. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Have they always been? William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Darcy Adams Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's My guess is that you just had a bad day (or week) with them. Besides being quite responsive, they send a warning to your postmaster@ mailbox when they list you. Really quite courteous. -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:hcoleman;state.mt.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's That was part of the problem...we went to the link on their site for our IP address, but no information was available on the specific message. It just gave a date that showed when we were first blacklisted. We spent about 2 days trying to get additional information from them. They finally sent us the header from the message. After tracking down the message and sender, we came to the conclusion that it was a legitimate message (not spam or UCE) and that the 30 or so recipients were all individuals that the sender knew. We sent this information back to SPAMCop, where it apparently sat in the bit bucket for 2 more days. They never disagreed with our opinion that the message wasn't spam, but finally de-listed us. Really frustrating, all in all. Hunter Coleman State of Montana -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's Perzactly - and in general they display the specific email message(s) that won you the honor of being on their list. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams;gettyimages.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 7:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's I'm surprised - I've never had any problems with SPAMCop. We've had relay problems, which I was able to resolve to their satisfaction and get off their list within hours. We've also been reported as spammers (we send bulk email out to our own customers, with an unsub option - we still get reported now and then), and I've been able to get that resolved just as quickly. At the very least, with SPAMCop, they *do* respond. Osirusoft and SPEWS do not. Darcy -Original Message- From: Parrett, Sue [mailto:sparrett;state.mt.us] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's From our experience, Spamcop.net is just as bad as any other RBL. They blacklisted our domain erroneously for 8 days in August and a couple days in Sept. Numerous domains were unable to accept mail from us. We considered their actions a Denial of Service and had to threaten them with legal action to remove our domain name from their list. Sue Parrett E-Mail Support Specialist STATE OF MONTANA - DOA/ ITSD (406) 444-1392 -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RBL's More likely a combination of b) and a fundamental lack of understanding of how the RBL they have chosen works with regards to managing their black hole lists. Purusal of the archives with regards to Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Cumming about this time last year should provide some valuable insight to the issues with RBLs in general. That being said, I'm fairly impressed with the Spamcop.net RBL - they provide documentation of their blocked senders via the web, and are very quick to retest and remove if the problem has been solved. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA _ 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] === This email and
RE: X.400 issues
If you've taken the steps described in Q243632, then the next most likely issue is available bandwidth as mentioned in Q194589. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Event ID 57: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service The limit on the number of associations allowed to and from entity (X.400 address) has been reached. The limit is 9. [MTA XFER-IN 19 34](12) Event ID 289: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A connection to (X.400 address) could not be opened [MTA XFER-IN 19 26](12) Event ID 1290: Source: MSExchagneMTA Type: Warning Category: X.400 Service A locally initiated association to (X.400 address) was refused. The failure reason provider was 0 and the reason was 0. Control block index 6. Type 1. [PLATFORM KERNEL 25 130](12) Event ID 9202: Source: MSExchangeMTA Type: Warning Category: Operating System A sockets error 10061 on an accept[] call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the socketsconnection. Control block index: /. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 8 256](12) These are the Event ID's that continually pop up on the one remote server with the same symptoms, the other server just produces the 289 event id only. Thanks, Josh -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues Admission: I'm entirely too lazy to go look up the random odd event ID or guestimate what too long[1] means. It there any chance you (the collective you) could include the Event ID source and description in addition to the number? And that you could provide an example of sent/ received times which constitute a too long delivery time. [1] When I worked at $vbc we initially had an MS Mail PO config which routinely resulted in 8 hour delivery times of mail from the US to Indonesia. If a user called and said it'd been six hours and the mail wasn't delivered, we didn't troubleshoot it. -Original Message- From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:jbennett;cotelligent.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it. I've found it on the MS web site, but can find no definitive cost information. They tell you it covers Win2k Server, Exchange, SMS and Sharepoint, but then when you go to try and find pricing information, they want you to pick one. Why can't they just give out the information, without making you sift through 15,000 web pages??!! What can you tell me? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook And you're not buying core CALs why? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Ah...but that's okay. I'm already at Win2k or XP on all my clients and servers. The upgrade to SP3 from Win2k SP2 is free. And it's possible that I did misread the previous statement. But going to .NET/Titanium and an AD Structure, from our current Win2k / Ex5.5 / NT 4.0 domain model, will be quite spendy. Heck, it just cost me $54k to get our Outlook CAL's up to snuff, because you can't buy Ex5.5 CAL's anymore. They wouldn't listen to me last August, when you could still get those for ~$13/ea. Now, they're up to ~$67/ea for an Ex5.5/E2k CAL! -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hell, they're going to make you upgrade to W2K Sp3 or XP for Office 11 too... -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use OL11?! How freakin' stupid is that? It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5. Talk about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers... That's it! I'm done playing! I'm gonna move our whole organization to one Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro! Phhhppptt! -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I am pretty sure you are correct. -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too. You can't run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Has it been announced? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11? Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the hardware used to run it. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hypothetically, if Microsoft came out with new technology that would make MAPI obsolete (something like front-end/back-end OWA with all the features of Outlook), would you then toss out the VPN and stop charging customers for it? I am still hoping that something like this will be available, but then if I invest in VPN technologies it would be a waste of money. -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:julian.stone;netstore.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook We also allow Mapi across the internet, but with VPN systems for those customers who are willing to pay for the added security. Some customers have even requested got non HTTPS OWA access, where their password is sent in clear text !! Yours, Julian Stone Exchange 2000 Consultant and
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
I never heard of one. What's the approx cost? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it. I've found it on the MS web site, but can find no definitive cost information. They tell you it covers Win2k Server, Exchange, SMS and Sharepoint, but then when you go to try and find pricing information, they want you to pick one. Why can't they just give out the information, without making you sift through 15,000 web pages??!! What can you tell me? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook And you're not buying core CALs why? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Ah...but that's okay. I'm already at Win2k or XP on all my clients and servers. The upgrade to SP3 from Win2k SP2 is free. And it's possible that I did misread the previous statement. But going to .NET/Titanium and an AD Structure, from our current Win2k / Ex5.5 / NT 4.0 domain model, will be quite spendy. Heck, it just cost me $54k to get our Outlook CAL's up to snuff, because you can't buy Ex5.5 CAL's anymore. They wouldn't listen to me last August, when you could still get those for ~$13/ea. Now, they're up to ~$67/ea for an Ex5.5/E2k CAL! -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hell, they're going to make you upgrade to W2K Sp3 or XP for Office 11 too... -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use OL11?! How freakin' stupid is that? It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5. Talk about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers... That's it! I'm done playing! I'm gonna move our whole organization to one Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro! Phhhppptt! -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I am pretty sure you are correct. -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too. You can't run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Has it been announced? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11? Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the hardware used to run it. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hypothetically, if Microsoft came out with new technology that would make MAPI obsolete (something like front-end/back-end OWA with all the features of Outlook), would you then toss out the VPN and stop charging customers for it? I am still hoping that something like this will be available, but then if I invest in VPN technologies it would be a waste of money. -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:julian.stone;netstore.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook We also allow Mapi across the internet, but with VPN systems for those customers who are
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
URL? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it. I've found it on the MS web site, but can find no definitive cost information. They tell you it covers Win2k Server, Exchange, SMS and Sharepoint, but then when you go to try and find pricing information, they want you to pick one. Why can't they just give out the information, without making you sift through 15,000 web pages??!! What can you tell me? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook And you're not buying core CALs why? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Ah...but that's okay. I'm already at Win2k or XP on all my clients and servers. The upgrade to SP3 from Win2k SP2 is free. And it's possible that I did misread the previous statement. But going to .NET/Titanium and an AD Structure, from our current Win2k / Ex5.5 / NT 4.0 domain model, will be quite spendy. Heck, it just cost me $54k to get our Outlook CAL's up to snuff, because you can't buy Ex5.5 CAL's anymore. They wouldn't listen to me last August, when you could still get those for ~$13/ea. Now, they're up to ~$67/ea for an Ex5.5/E2k CAL! -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hell, they're going to make you upgrade to W2K Sp3 or XP for Office 11 too... -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use OL11?! How freakin' stupid is that? It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5. Talk about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers... That's it! I'm done playing! I'm gonna move our whole organization to one Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro! Phhhppptt! -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I am pretty sure you are correct. -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too. You can't run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Has it been announced? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11? Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the hardware used to run it. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hypothetically, if Microsoft came out with new technology that would make MAPI obsolete (something like front-end/back-end OWA with all the features of Outlook), would you then toss out the VPN and stop charging customers for it? I am still hoping that something like this will be available, but then if I invest in VPN technologies it would be a waste of money. -Original Message- From: Julian Stone [mailto:julian.stone;netstore.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook We also allow Mapi across the internet, but with VPN systems for those customers who are willing to pay for the added security.
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
The core CAL has replaced the BackOffice CAL. http://www.microsoft.com/backofficeserver/howtobuy/pricing/changes.asp HTH, (back to lurking) ~R~ -- Roger Haxton Network Administrator Sure-Tel [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- There's probably a great big flaw in this theory, but asking myself What would Snake Plisskin do? hasn't steered me wrong yet -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:MBlackstone;superioraccess.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook URL? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it. I've found it on the MS web site, but can find no definitive cost information. They tell you it covers Win2k Server, Exchange, SMS and Sharepoint, but then when you go to try and find pricing information, they want you to pick one. Why can't they just give out the information, without making you sift through 15,000 web pages??!! What can you tell me? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook And you're not buying core CALs why? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Ah...but that's okay. I'm already at Win2k or XP on all my clients and servers. The upgrade to SP3 from Win2k SP2 is free. And it's possible that I did misread the previous statement. But going to .NET/Titanium and an AD Structure, from our current Win2k / Ex5.5 / NT 4.0 domain model, will be quite spendy. Heck, it just cost me $54k to get our Outlook CAL's up to snuff, because you can't buy Ex5.5 CAL's anymore. They wouldn't listen to me last August, when you could still get those for ~$13/ea. Now, they're up to ~$67/ea for an Ex5.5/E2k CAL! -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hell, they're going to make you upgrade to W2K Sp3 or XP for Office 11 too... -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use OL11?! How freakin' stupid is that? It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5. Talk about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers... That's it! I'm done playing! I'm gonna move our whole organization to one Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro! Phhhppptt! -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I am pretty sure you are correct. -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too. You can't run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Has it been announced? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11? Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the hardware used to run it. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hypothetically, if Microsoft came out with new technology that would make MAPI
RE: VPN breaks Outlook
That's pretty cool. I wish it covered SQL as well. -Original Message- From: Roger Haxton [mailto:RHaxton;suretel.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook The core CAL has replaced the BackOffice CAL. http://www.microsoft.com/backofficeserver/howtobuy/pricing/changes.asp HTH, (back to lurking) ~R~ -- Roger Haxton Network Administrator Sure-Tel [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- There's probably a great big flaw in this theory, but asking myself What would Snake Plisskin do? hasn't steered me wrong yet -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:MBlackstone;superioraccess.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook URL? -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 8:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I didn't even know what a core CAL was, until you posted it. I've found it on the MS web site, but can find no definitive cost information. They tell you it covers Win2k Server, Exchange, SMS and Sharepoint, but then when you go to try and find pricing information, they want you to pick one. Why can't they just give out the information, without making you sift through 15,000 web pages??!! What can you tell me? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook And you're not buying core CALs why? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Ah...but that's okay. I'm already at Win2k or XP on all my clients and servers. The upgrade to SP3 from Win2k SP2 is free. And it's possible that I did misread the previous statement. But going to .NET/Titanium and an AD Structure, from our current Win2k / Ex5.5 / NT 4.0 domain model, will be quite spendy. Heck, it just cost me $54k to get our Outlook CAL's up to snuff, because you can't buy Ex5.5 CAL's anymore. They wouldn't listen to me last August, when you could still get those for ~$13/ea. Now, they're up to ~$67/ea for an Ex5.5/E2k CAL! -Original Message- From: Ely, Don [mailto:dely;TripathImaging.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Hell, they're going to make you upgrade to W2K Sp3 or XP for Office 11 too... -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:jhblunt;bhi-erc.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook MS is going to force us to go to a .NET/Titanium platform in order to use OL11?! How freakin' stupid is that? It's a great marketing strategy, but I can't believe that they wouldn't make it backwards compatible with E2k/E5.5. Talk about continually shooting yourself in the foot with your customers... That's it! I'm done playing! I'm gonna move our whole organization to one Linux 8.0 server running CommuniGate Pro! Phhhppptt! -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook I am pretty sure you are correct. -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:bms;hawaiilawyer.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Yes, but I believe it requires Titanium on the server side too. You can't run over HTTP against an Exchange 5.5 Server just because you have OL11. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Has it been announced? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook Something like MAPI over http as announced for Outlook 11? Maybe, but given the large install base of Outlook 97 still out there, it would seem that an investment in VPN today would have reasonable utility over the lifespan of the hardware used to run it. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov
RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message
Though they should be, SMTP addresses are not guaranteed to be unique, either. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Exchange (Swynk) Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 7:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message But SMTP addresses are (unique at least) and work quite well in OWA. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:35 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message Not guaranteed to be unique or unambiguous. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 11/1/2002 6:34 AM Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message That's why its best to use the alias for the initial OWA login screen. That's guaranteed unique at least. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Elmerick, Ralph H. [mailto:elmerick;timken.com] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Web Access - Access denial Error Message We have this problem when the surname is not unique therefore in my case there is more than one Elmerick in the company and therefore I have to key in Elmerick, Ralph and then it works because it then can find my unique userid as opposed to Elmerick, Rose. Ralph H. Elmerick NT/Exchange Administrator 330-471-3409 _ 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]
RE: Working Offline
Of course, that would be 160K avaialable bandwidth. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of James Winzenz Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 7:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline So if you, say, have 20 users in a remote office, using a high estimate, they would need a total of 160K for outlook. In that scenario, why bother with offline folders and forcing users to synchronize? Even our remote dialup users still use outlook online for the added functionality. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Working Offline This issue has come up a few times regarding bandwidth needed for Outlook. Seems most here agree 4K range per user. I have seen some say as high as 8K though. - Original Message - From: James Winzenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:51 AM Subject: RE: Working Offline If they are connected using ADSL (how fast?) there is no reason why they can't continue to work online. My office currently does not have enough user to warrant an exchange server, so we connect remotely to our corp HQ. We are connecting over a 384K pipe, and we all work online. Even if the DSL line is only a 768K line, there should be no issues with your users working online if they want to. If you have enough users in the remote offices to be concerned about the bandwidth, then perhaps the idea of having a centralized exchange server should be rethought. We have about 20 users in this office, though, and there are no significant performance issues with outlook and exchange. I recommend forgetting the PF idea with calendars and let those users who need to open other users' calendars just work online. I really don't think they will see a performance hit, and if so, it should be minimal. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline Ok thanks, we have remote sites that used to have local exchange servers, and they worked online. We've now moved all mailboxes to our central server, seperated from our remote offices via ADSL, and remote users now work offline, with automatic synchs every 10 mins. They basically open each others calenders, so I'm thinking we could achieve the same by them using public folders instead -Original Message- From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz;inovis.com] Sent: 01 November 2002 14:13 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline 1) yes, they have to mark that folder as being synchronized/made available offline. Even if you designate all folders to be made available offline, you will have to go in and modify that synchronization group whenever new folders or subfolders are created. 2) no, you will not have access to other users' folders when working offline, because you are working *offline*. If they want to connect to other users' folders, they will have to work online. James Winzenz, MCSE, A+ Associate Systems Administrator InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:exchangelist;partition.co.uk] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Working Offline ...also, we have lost the ability to 'open other users folder' Is this simply not workable with offline working? Or is there a workaround thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 01 November 2002 13:53 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Working Offline Am I right in thinking that if a user working in an offline environment creates a subfolder under their Inbox, that they need to be taught how to mark that folder to be synchronized? Theres no way of making all new folders, by default, included in synchronization Thanks _ 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:
RE: X.400 issues
In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector
Exchange 2000/SP3I have an SMTP connector for internet mail traffic coming off of our exchange 2000 server. Every now and then a user sends an email to an internet address with an attachment that locks up the connector. It just sets there retrying. This happens with different users with different attachments. For instance, a user just sent an internet mail with a PDF attached and it stops in the Messages with an unreachable destination. I can grab that attachment and send it from my account to the user and it works fine? Any ideas what could be causing this? Thanks. _ 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]
RE: X.400 issues
I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the original post, sorry) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
Re: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector
Any error messages? Do you have limits set. Even if it was too large it should tell you right away. - Original Message - From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:57 PM Subject: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector Exchange 2000/SP3I have an SMTP connector for internet mail traffic coming off of our exchange 2000 server. Every now and then a user sends an email to an internet address with an attachment that locks up the connector. It just sets there retrying. This happens with different users with different attachments. For instance, a user just sent an internet mail with a PDF attached and it stops in the Messages with an unreachable destination. I can grab that attachment and send it from my account to the user and it works fine? Any ideas what could be causing this? Thanks. _ 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]
RE: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector
I cant tell you how sick I get of hearing that. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector Any error messages? Do you have limits set. Even if it was too large it should tell you right away. - Original Message - From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:57 PM Subject: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector Exchange 2000/SP3I have an SMTP connector for internet mail traffic coming off of our exchange 2000 server. Every now and then a user sends an email to an internet address with an attachment that locks up the connector. It just sets there retrying. This happens with different users with different attachments. For instance, a user just sent an internet mail with a PDF attached and it stops in the Messages with an unreachable destination. I can grab that attachment and send it from my account to the user and it works fine? Any ideas what could be causing this? Thanks. _ 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]
RE: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector
Up the logging and see what's happening. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector Exchange 2000/SP3I have an SMTP connector for internet mail traffic coming off of our exchange 2000 server. Every now and then a user sends an email to an internet address with an attachment that locks up the connector. It just sets there retrying. This happens with different users with different attachments. For instance, a user just sent an internet mail with a PDF attached and it stops in the Messages with an unreachable destination. I can grab that attachment and send it from my account to the user and it works fine? Any ideas what could be causing this? Thanks. _ 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]
Re: X.400 issues
Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having this issue? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the original post, sorry) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
RE: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector
Event ID: 977 with this text is what I get Following connector fails to connect to its target bridge head. CN=SMTP Internet Mail Connector,CN=Connections,CN=Columbus,CN=Routing Groups,CN=Columbus,CN=Administrative Groups,CN=Company Directory,CN=Microsoft Exchange,CN=Services,CN=Configuration,DC=domain,DC=tld This is a connection to our Mailsweeper gateway. Its not a size issue, the attachment is not that big. Its only on messages with attachments. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector Up the logging and see what's happening. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Message with attachment stopping SMTP Connector Exchange 2000/SP3I have an SMTP connector for internet mail traffic coming off of our exchange 2000 server. Every now and then a user sends an email to an internet address with an attachment that locks up the connector. It just sets there retrying. This happens with different users with different attachments. For instance, a user just sent an internet mail with a PDF attached and it stops in the Messages with an unreachable destination. I can grab that attachment and send it from my account to the user and it works fine? Any ideas what could be causing this? Thanks. _ 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]
Re: Interesting EX2K migration solution
Alex, I have performed these types of migrations before. In particular for a large 12,000 seat fast-food restaurant system composed of a number of different email systems including 2 E55, 1 cc:Mail and 1 MS Mail systems. Here are the main issues with these types of migrations (between 2 disparate Exchange organizations): 1. It sounds like you will be integrating E2K servers into one of your existing E55 organizations. I call this a Typical Exchange 2000 Migration. Depending on how many sites you have, you will want to put an E2K server in each of those sites. Once this is done you can move the users from the E55 servers to your E2K servers. You can do this via the admin tools, but it is a pain selecting and migrating them manually. Because I have done this before, I actually have a tool that will batch-automate this process that we have used with a lot of success. 2. The second E55 system will be migrated as a Foreign Mail System. This is referred to as a Foreign Mail System Exchange 2000 Migration. More on this in a minute as this raises a number of issues you will need to be concerned about. 3. Before you do anything, you will want to upgrade your NT4 PDC to Windows 2000 and integrate it with your AD design. This is the NT4 domain where you will be performing the Typical Exchange Migration. You will also want to install the ADC into this domain. Then, you can install your first E2K server and join it to your E55 organization. 4. Because you are joining your E2K system into your existing E55 system, you have solved most/all of your coexistence problems, GAL, messaging connectivity, Free/Busy information and public folders. 5. Because you are joining your E2K system into your existing E55 system, you have solved most/all of your migration problems in terms of getting the mailbox and other data to your new E2K environment. The only issue here is if you want to do this all manually or automate the process. 6. Because your other E55 system is being treated as a Foreign Mail System, you have coexistence and migration issues with this system. Luckily, the migration issues can be addressed through the use of the Exchange Migration Wizard which semi-supports E55. The reason for the semi-support is that unlike every other mail system that the Migration Wizard supports, E55 migrations are implemented by using a PST file for its export medium instead of the standard PRI, PKL, SEC files used for all other migrations. This is a pain because the migration wizard puts a random password on all of those PST's. Again, this can be a real pain to do manually. And again, I have tools, Rocket, to help automate this process. Also, more on migration issues below... 7. Now, coexistence is an issue for the foreign E55 system. You will probably want to think about some type of coexistence between the two systems. Not sure what you have in place today in terms of coexistence, but the main things you will want to be concerned with are a GAL, Messaging connectivity, Free/Busy connectivity and Public Folder synchronization. There are various, largely unsupported tools on various resource kits and other locations that can aid in this effort. However, in all honesty, they are not the greatest tools in the world. Again, since we have run into this before, we created Furnace, which allows one to easily exchange directory, free/busy and public folder information between two disparate Exchange systems (E55 and E2K). This gives you a GAL in each system that contains everything from both systems. 8. Once you get all of your Typical Migration complete, you can switch to Native Mode in Exchange and consolidate your Administrative Groups to simplify your life and no longer be bound by your E55 site definitions. 9. As far as the user logon and access piece of this, depending on how you are configured, you will probably want to clone all of your user accounts in the Foreign Exchange NT domains into your AD structure as mail-enabled users or contacts. This can be done using the ADC or the ADMT tools. Different issues with each of these and different methods will work for different situations. The main item is that users will continue to use their existing account and mailbox until they are migrated. 10. Migration involves a lot of issues and some things will depend on how you do it. You could use certain tools to move the entire foreign Exchange server into the E2K/E55 organization. Lots of pros and cons to this approach. The other method, as I mentioned, was the Migration Wizard. Again, pros and cons. Regardless of how you do it, if not everyone will be migrated at the same time, then you have to look at closely at your migration Process. This is very important. You will need to create the mailbox, perform mail redirection, export the data and import the data. Obviously this is simplifying what is involved. The important piece that you will want to think about is email redirection. Exchange uses an X500 address that gets stamped on all messages
Re: Groupwise Migration address books
We have a tool to export information from GroupWise address books and format it for import into Outlook. If you are looking for a fully automated solution, this solution could be adapted quite easily. If you are interested, you can contact me and we could work out how you could utilize this tool for your needs. And we wouldn't rake you at price/seat kind of prices, we would just charge you for any develop time needed to suit the tool to your needs, etc. If you actually employed us for migration consulting, the tool comes along for free! ;) We actually have a lot of GW-E2K migration expertise, http://www.infonition.com I am planning a GroupWise migration to Exchange 2000 and currently a number of the GroupWise clients have multiple address books (some up to 50) and are emphatic about duplicating this configuration within Outlook. The GroupWise migration tool provided by Microsoft does not allow me to easily transfer the GroupWise address books into contacts under the new users Exchange mailbox. Any suggestions for dealing with this type of migration be it 3 party tool would be greatly appreciated. _ 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]
Forms in Oulook 98
Does anyone know how you set up Send/Receive to sync forms in Outlook 98? Thank you, Alex Gonzalez Senior Systems Administrator Handleman Company [EMAIL PROTECTED] (248) 362-4400 Ext. 4914 _ 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]
RE: Interesting EX2K migration solution
We have agreed before, Greg. It isn't all that rare. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Interesting EX2K migration solution Alex, I have performed these types of migrations before. In particular for a large 12,000 seat fast-food restaurant system composed of a number of different email systems including 2 E55, 1 cc:Mail and 1 MS Mail systems. Here are the main issues with these types of migrations (between 2 disparate Exchange organizations): 1. It sounds like you will be integrating E2K servers into one of your existing E55 organizations. I call this a Typical Exchange 2000 Migration. Depending on how many sites you have, you will want to put an E2K server in each of those sites. Once this is done you can move the users from the E55 servers to your E2K servers. You can do this via the admin tools, but it is a pain selecting and migrating them manually. Because I have done this before, I actually have a tool that will batch-automate this process that we have used with a lot of success. 2. The second E55 system will be migrated as a Foreign Mail System. This is referred to as a Foreign Mail System Exchange 2000 Migration. More on this in a minute as this raises a number of issues you will need to be concerned about. 3. Before you do anything, you will want to upgrade your NT4 PDC to Windows 2000 and integrate it with your AD design. This is the NT4 domain where you will be performing the Typical Exchange Migration. You will also want to install the ADC into this domain. Then, you can install your first E2K server and join it to your E55 organization. 4. Because you are joining your E2K system into your existing E55 system, you have solved most/all of your coexistence problems, GAL, messaging connectivity, Free/Busy information and public folders. 5. Because you are joining your E2K system into your existing E55 system, you have solved most/all of your migration problems in terms of getting the mailbox and other data to your new E2K environment. The only issue here is if you want to do this all manually or automate the process. 6. Because your other E55 system is being treated as a Foreign Mail System, you have coexistence and migration issues with this system. Luckily, the migration issues can be addressed through the use of the Exchange Migration Wizard which semi-supports E55. The reason for the semi-support is that unlike every other mail system that the Migration Wizard supports, E55 migrations are implemented by using a PST file for its export medium instead of the standard PRI, PKL, SEC files used for all other migrations. This is a pain because the migration wizard puts a random password on all of those PST's. Again, this can be a real pain to do manually. And again, I have tools, Rocket, to help automate this process. Also, more on migration issues below... 7. Now, coexistence is an issue for the foreign E55 system. You will probably want to think about some type of coexistence between the two systems. Not sure what you have in place today in terms of coexistence, but the main things you will want to be concerned with are a GAL, Messaging connectivity, Free/Busy connectivity and Public Folder synchronization. There are various, largely unsupported tools on various resource kits and other locations that can aid in this effort. However, in all honesty, they are not the greatest tools in the world. Again, since we have run into this before, we created Furnace, which allows one to easily exchange directory, free/busy and public folder information between two disparate Exchange systems (E55 and E2K). This gives you a GAL in each system that contains everything from both systems. 8. Once you get all of your Typical Migration complete, you can switch to Native Mode in Exchange and consolidate your Administrative Groups to simplify your life and no longer be bound by your E55 site definitions. 9. As far as the user logon and access piece of this, depending on how you are configured, you will probably want to clone all of your user accounts in the Foreign Exchange NT domains into your AD structure as mail-enabled users or contacts. This can be done using the ADC or the ADMT tools. Different issues with each of these and different methods will work for different situations. The main item is that users will continue to use their existing account and mailbox until they are migrated. 10. Migration involves a lot of issues and some things will depend on how you do it. You could use certain tools to move the entire foreign Exchange server into the E2K/E55 organization. Lots of pros and cons to this approach. The other method, as I mentioned, was the Migration Wizard. Again, pros and cons. Regardless of how you do it, if not
RE: X.400 issues
I am not so sure it is a network issue.I have other Ex servers in different sites on the other end of the same T1 that are fine and do not generate these errors. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse;hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: X.400 issues Sounds like you need to put some type of monitor on your network to see if there is anything abnormal with it particularly the links. Maybe if traffic is that heavy maybe multiple X.400 connectors to the sites that are having this issue? - Original Message - From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: RE: X.400 issues I am actually using the IP address (probably should have stated that in the original post, sorry) -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: X.400 issues In the X.400 connector definition are you identifying the remote server by host name? If so, change it to IP address and see if the problem goes away. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Bennett, Joshua Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: X.400 issues Hello all, I have an incredibly annoying situation going on that I can't seem to get a grip on. I am not sure of the magnitude of the errors I am seeing due to the fact that mail is still flowing. Here is my setup: I am running WNT4.0 SP6 / EX 5.5 EE SP4 all hotfixes on all these servers. I have a hub and spoke configuration within my EX org. All my remote servers connect (through X.400 connectors) to a central EX server that serves as my IMS to the internet. All the spoke servers are BDC's in NT domains. The hub server is a member server in a central domain that all other domains have 2-way trusts to. All the remote servers (scattered across the US) are connected to the hub server by full T1 lines. My issue is this: The MTA on the hub server backs up and an Event ID: 289 is written to the App log then the queue flushes clear and all mail is delivered without incident. This seems to occur about every 10 minutes or so during the day. There does not appear to be, at least on the surface, any connectivity issues. Should I just ignore these errors, as the mail is being delivered? Or is this just the beginning of a major issue about to explode in my lap? Please help, I have dug around MS site and Google and come up with little to no help. Thanks, Josh Bennett Exchange Admin\Systems Engineer Cotelligent, Inc. 401 Parkway Drive Broomall, PA. 19008 610-359-5929 www.cotelligent.com _ 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]
Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Thanks -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:30 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
Only the first public folder tree, also known as the MAPI public folder tree, is visible through Outlook. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Using what client? Outlook will not see it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Thanks -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:30 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
Thanks I understand now. Well for now they will be using OWA. What is happening is that in Exchange System Manager when I go to mailbox properties, under Default Public Store and click on browse I don't see the new public folder I just created. Thanks Ed Saul -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:39 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Using what client? Outlook will not see it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Thanks -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:30 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion and on page 275 it shows I can select another public folder as default but I don't see that on my ESM. Any ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Newsgroups Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:46 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Thanks I understand now. Well for now they will be using OWA. What is happening is that in Exchange System Manager when I go to mailbox properties, under Default Public Store and click on browse I don't see the new public folder I just created. Thanks Ed Saul -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:39 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Using what client? Outlook will not see it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Thanks -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:30 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
That book sucks. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:Newsgroups;henwoodenergy.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion and on page 275 it shows I can select another public folder as default but I don't see that on my ESM. Any ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Newsgroups Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:46 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Thanks I understand now. Well for now they will be using OWA. What is happening is that in Exchange System Manager when I go to mailbox properties, under Default Public Store and click on browse I don't see the new public folder I just created. Thanks Ed Saul -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:39 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Using what client? Outlook will not see it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Thanks -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:30 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
So are you saying that I can't associate it? -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:06 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox That book sucks. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:Newsgroups;henwoodenergy.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions I am looking at the Microsoft Exchange 2000 Administrator's Companion and on page 275 it shows I can select another public folder as default but I don't see that on my ESM. Any ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Newsgroups Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:46 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Thanks I understand now. Well for now they will be using OWA. What is happening is that in Exchange System Manager when I go to mailbox properties, under Default Public Store and click on browse I don't see the new public folder I just created. Thanks Ed Saul -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:39 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Using what client? Outlook will not see it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I am not using outlook though. This is the Exchange System Manager that I am trying to associate it with. I want to users in the new mailbox default to the new public folder store that I created. Thanks -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william;techsanctuary.org] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:30 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Outlook (MAPI) is actually limited to a single public folder hierarchy. Though Exchange allows for the creation of multiples, the Outlook client can only see one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Newsgroups Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Exchange 2k sp3. I created a public folder tree, then created Second Storage group, then Created a public folder store and associated to the second public folder tree. In that second Storage group I created a mailbox store and want to associate the new public folder to it. When I select browse I only see the Default (1st Public Folder store) not the new one I created. The new public folder is already mounted. Am I doing something wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks _ 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:
Is this a virus?
Hi all. I have this user who is running Outlook 2000. Somehow his Drafts folder got moved and became a subfolder of Inbox. And once in a while a message appears in the Drafts folder. The subject of the message is 2. And the message has an attachment - the attached file is the user's PST file with size ~100MB. It has to be some kind of malicious code doing it. Where should I tell the customer to look? I already told him to do a virus scan on his PC. Thanks! _ 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]
RE: Is this a virus?
Oh yeah, I already ran Outlook.exe /ResetFolders That helped to put the Drafts back. Now I need to wait and see whether that big message pops in again. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Is this a virus? Hi all. I have this user who is running Outlook 2000. Somehow his Drafts folder got moved and became a subfolder of Inbox. And once in a while a message appears in the Drafts folder. The subject of the message is 2. And the message has an attachment - the attached file is the user's PST file with size ~100MB. It has to be some kind of malicious code doing it. Where should I tell the customer to look? I already told him to do a virus scan on his PC. Thanks! _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
There's only 1 MAPI TLH, you can create several non-MAPI TLH trees if you'd like, but Outlook clients only see the first. Q258509 That book sucks. So are you saying that I can't associate it? No, I'm saying you should buy a book which sucks less. _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
I am sorry if I don't understand.Why is the browse button in the default public folder for a mailbox there for? Our client is going to use OWA. Can't I just have the users in the new mailbox see only the new public folder? Again sorry Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:20 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox There's only 1 MAPI TLH, you can create several non-MAPI TLH trees if you'd like, but Outlook clients only see the first. Q258509 That book sucks. So are you saying that I can't associate it? No, I'm saying you should buy a book which sucks less. _ 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]
RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox
I'm not sure where the browse button you are referring to exists, but I'll thow out a WAG that it's to specify which instance of the MAPI TLH the mailbox should access (which would only be relavent in multiserver environments and would still point to just a particular replica of the same TLH). If the goal in this scenario is to have a different TLH for multiple companies, it's all done in the same mapi TLH using restricted views on what folders are visible to a particular user. The alternate TLHs are really only useful for application development IMO. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 11/1/2002 4:32 PM Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox I am sorry if I don't understand.Why is the browse button in the default public folder for a mailbox there for? Our client is going to use OWA. Can't I just have the users in the new mailbox see only the new public folder? Again sorry Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff;messageone.com] Posted At: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:20 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox Subject: RE: Associate a Public Folder to a specific Mailbox There's only 1 MAPI TLH, you can create several non-MAPI TLH trees if you'd like, but Outlook clients only see the first. Q258509 That book sucks. So are you saying that I can't associate it? No, I'm saying you should buy a book which sucks less. _ 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]
