RE: Exchange and SAN
argh
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 22 September 2003 20:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
Hey, they use the same letters, so they have to be the same
thing, right?
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 4:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
My biggest problem is the amount of jerk-off sellers.
We asked for
i) a san
ii) some direct-attatched external storage
The amount of vendors who took those comments on board, asked
what we wanted them for, and then promptly quoted for a NAS
device was quite depressing. Idiots.
-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 19/09/2003 20:52
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc:
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox.
My favorite one I've heard lately: Well, it uses fiber
to attach to the SAN
so it's much faster for Exchange.
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN
As long as you don't buy into the great white lie of
SAN's, you're golden.
That lie is that there's no performance hit created by
taking a single large
array and carving it into a bunch of LUNs - there's a
physics issue there.
Other than that, its just a bunch of disks, just like
the SCSI attached ones
you probably have now.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange and SAN
Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues
with it? I've
always had a raid array attached to it which could be the
same thing but did
not know if there were any major differences? Any help would
be appreciate
it.
Thanks,
Mario
**
*
The contents of this communication are intended only for the
addressee and
may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
are not the
intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or
disclose this
communication and notify the sender. Opinions,
conclusions and other
information in this communication that do not relate
to the official
business of my company shall be understood as neither given
nor endorsed by
it.
**
*
_
List posting FAQ:
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web
Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget
ext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ:
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget
ext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ 2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
PROTECTED])j¹%Ë\¢oâùr®+)éíz·±r§ë^ÆuéZ§X¬
:.±Êâm[hæ¯yì\
OWA Messages View on Inbox
Exch2k3/Win2k3 When I open OWA the view I like to use is the messages view. When I use this view all I get is Loading in the message pane. If I switch to another view it works fine. This is happening to all other users on different browsers, so I am assuming its server side. Searched on KB with no luck. One article was talking about Netscape, but we are using IE. Anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Adding another smtp address and making it primary
He'd want a cherry Coke, not a beer. But he might take you up on it.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 5:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Adding another smtp address and making it primary Thanks, that was easy :-). If you are ever in chicago, look me up, I'll buy you a beer. Raj -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Adding another smtp address and making it primary Modify your Recipient Policy :-) See, that wasn't too hard. In your recip. Policy properties, you have the e-mail addresses defined. Add the second address, and choose Set as Primary. It will update all the users automagically. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Pillai, Raj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:31 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Adding another smtp address and making it primary Subject: Adding another smtp address and making it primary Hello All, My client has merged with another firm.Is there a tool to add another smtp address and making it primary without going thru' the hassle of manually touching every user account? Exchange 2000 Server enterprise edition. Sp3 / windows 2000 sp2. Thanks Raj ** ** ** This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message.Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. ** ** ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, may be protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges, and may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this message, do not read it; please immediately notify the sender that you have received this message in error and delete this message.Unauthorized use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, reproduction of this message or the information contained in this message or the taking of any action in reliance on it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your cooperation. ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange and SAN
Actually, there's enough redundancy even in the smaller scale SANS that you're not at significant risk for that. Shortly after the install of our SAN, we had an issue with one of the storage processors (think of it as a RAID controller within the SAN). It was hot swapped, during the day, without any downtime, and didn't significantly impact the 3 boxes connected at that time. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN I can't get past the concept that if the SAN dies (ie FC card or Power Supplies) then all teh servers you have attached to it are dead in the water. Sounds like a quasi mainframe to me. I still prefer many eggs and many baskets and take the disk hit. Mind you I would be interested in SAN technology just to put the tape drives external to the server room (like a few miles away via fibre) cheers Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/09/2003 7:52:42 a.m. I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox. My favorite one I've heard lately: Well, it uses fiber to attach to the SAN so it's much faster for Exchange. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN As long as you don't buy into the great white lie of SAN's, you're golden. That lie is that there's no performance hit created by taking a single large array and carving it into a bunch of LUNs - there's a physics issue there. Other than that, its just a bunch of disks, just like the SCSI attached ones you probably have now. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange and SAN Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate it. Thanks, Mario ** * The contents of this communication are intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this communication that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. ** * _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Northland State of the Environment Report 2002 now online at www.nrc.govt.nz ** NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL
RE: Exchange and SAN
For our customer we had a controller on their SAN go down, but the redundant controller picked up the slack until the problem controller could be swapped out. The downtime was limited to 20 minutes for one Exchange server (there are five for the site involved). Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Roger Seielstad Reply To: Exchange Discussions Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Actually, there's enough redundancy even in the smaller scale SANS that you're not at significant risk for that. Shortly after the install of our SAN, we had an issue with one of the storage processors (think of it as a RAID controller within the SAN). It was hot swapped, during the day, without any downtime, and didn't significantly impact the 3 boxes connected at that time. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN I can't get past the concept that if the SAN dies (ie FC card or Power Supplies) then all teh servers you have attached to it are dead in the water. Sounds like a quasi mainframe to me. I still prefer many eggs and many baskets and take the disk hit. Mind you I would be interested in SAN technology just to put the tape drives external to the server room (like a few miles away via fibre) cheers Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/09/2003 7:52:42 a.m. I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox. My favorite one I've heard lately: Well, it uses fiber to attach to the SAN so it's much faster for Exchange. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN As long as you don't buy into the great white lie of SAN's, you're golden. That lie is that there's no performance hit created by taking a single large array and carving it into a bunch of LUNs - there's a physics issue there. Other than that, its just a bunch of disks, just like the SCSI attached ones you probably have now. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange and SAN Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate it. Thanks, Mario ** * The contents of this communication are intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this communication that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. ** * _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=la ng =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Northland State of the Environment Report 2002 now online at www.nrc.govt.nz ** NORTHLAND REGIONAL
SSL encryption before login to OWA
I'm sure this is an easy fix but I cant figure out how to fix it. I setup OWA to use
SSL. My problem is that when a user first connects and it prompts for the user to
sign in It is not encrypted. After loging in the once ith then prompts to sign in for
a second time and at that point It encrypts the connection. Any Ideas would help.
Thanks
Matt
â²Úh²PÛiÿü0ÂÌÇ(ú«qïÞÅÈ_j¨mg{^özm§ÿâÊZ®Ib²×(÷
¸§þ\«Êez{^ì\
©àz¶j zV§éà+!N§²æìr¸zf¢Ú%y«Þ{!jx Ë0Êy ¢a1r§ââ²)åËZvh§³
§Ê
RE: SSL encryption before login to OWA
My understanding was that if you open any connection as https:// that any
authentication is encrypted even though the padlock doesn't appear until
they authenticate (or don't).
Are you sure that's not happening?
regards,
Paul
--
Paul Hutchings
Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
Tel: 44 (0)24 7635 5378, Fax: 44 (0)24 7635 8378
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 September 2003 13:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SSL encryption before login to OWA
I'm sure this is an easy fix but I cant figure out how to fix
it. I setup OWA to use SSL. My problem is that when a user
first connects and it prompts for the user to sign in It is
not encrypted. After loging in the once ith then prompts to
sign in for a second time and at that point It encrypts the
connection. Any Ideas would help.
Thanks
Matt
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SSL encryption before login to OWA
No, im only going by the padlock icon. Is there any other way to tell for sure with
out sniffing the conncetion. If not I guess I have to find my sniffing hat and wipe
off the dust.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SSL encryption before login to OWA
My understanding was that if you open any connection as https:// that any
authentication is encrypted even though the padlock doesn't appear until
they authenticate (or don't).
Are you sure that's not happening?
regards,
Paul
--
Paul Hutchings
Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
Tel: 44 (0)24 7635 5378, Fax: 44 (0)24 7635 8378
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 September 2003 13:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SSL encryption before login to OWA
I'm sure this is an easy fix but I cant figure out how to fix
it. I setup OWA to use SSL. My problem is that when a user
first connects and it prompts for the user to sign in It is
not encrypted. After loging in the once ith then prompts to
sign in for a second time and at that point It encrypts the
connection. Any Ideas would help.
Thanks
Matt
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+-¦-xm¶ÿÃ
,Â)Ür¿ë(º· ýì\
öªy²'µêßi¶Úþ)íÙl¥ªä+-r¿r嬦W§µêÞÅÈZ{f¡jx
b²èº{.nÇ+·¦j)m¢W½ç±r§él³ §Ê!jx .+-iX¬µ§f{0Êy ¢
RE: A CHALLENGE to the List
Me Too from AOL. -Original Message- From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: A CHALLENGE to the List Ditto from the United Kingdom Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 September 2003 23:08 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: A CHALLENGE to the List I see the 10 to 12 looks like its gone, but I would be happy to accept your challenge should you want a non-USA review of your book. regards Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/09/2003 8:23:27 a.m. Well, it appears that a number of individuals from this list have chosen to engage in childish and cowardly ad hominem attacks on myself and Achieving Process Profitability: Building the IT Profit Center without ever even reading a single page of it. I have been in contact with Amazon.com so these reviews will be removed in the near future. I could take this opportunity to opine about how unprofessional, unfair, childish and cowardly this is, but instead I offer this challenge: I will send you a copy of my Achieving Process Profitability at my own expense for you to review. All that I ask in return is that you actually read Achieving Process Profitability and post an honest, impartial review of it's contents, not your personal prejudices, to Amazon.com and this list. I will only respond to indivuals that publicly accept my challenge on this list, just respond to this message and then privately email me your name and address. I have a limited supply of books so I will accept the first 10-12 responses to this challenge. All fair-minded individuals will accept this challenge and the rest of the pompous bags of gas will be exposed for what they are. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Northland State of the Environment Report 2002 now online at www.nrc.govt.nz ** NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * ** The information contained in this message or any of its attachments may be confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited without the express permission of the sender. The views expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Sony or Sony affiliated companies. Sony email is for business use only. This email and any response may be monitored by Sony United Kingdom Limited. (04) * ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang= english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox
I had problems with that with users who were accessing from an AOL windows. For instance, when they connected to AOL and tried using the current window to go to OWA, things like you are explaining happened. The user had to open another instance of IE to get OWA to display properly. Also, I saw this with a Proxy being the culprit. Had to make changes on the proxy. Hope this helps. Samantha -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Messages View on Inbox Exch2k3/Win2k3 When I open OWA the view I like to use is the messages view. When I use this view all I get is Loading in the message pane. If I switch to another view it works fine. This is happening to all other users on different browsers, so I am assuming its server side. Searched on KB with no luck. One article was talking about Netscape, but we are using IE. Anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox
You never use the AOL browser for OWA. IE works fine with AOL and that is what users should be using to access OWA. -Original Message- From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox I had problems with that with users who were accessing from an AOL windows. For instance, when they connected to AOL and tried using the current window to go to OWA, things like you are explaining happened. The user had to open another instance of IE to get OWA to display properly. Also, I saw this with a Proxy being the culprit. Had to make changes on the proxy. Hope this helps. Samantha -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Messages View on Inbox Exch2k3/Win2k3 When I open OWA the view I like to use is the messages view. When I use this view all I get is Loading in the message pane. If I switch to another view it works fine. This is happening to all other users on different browsers, so I am assuming its server side. Searched on KB with no luck. One article was talking about Netscape, but we are using IE. Anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox
This happens internal and external. We don't have a proxy server. Thanks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bridges, Samantha Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox I had problems with that with users who were accessing from an AOL windows. For instance, when they connected to AOL and tried using the current window to go to OWA, things like you are explaining happened. The user had to open another instance of IE to get OWA to display properly. Also, I saw this with a Proxy being the culprit. Had to make changes on the proxy. Hope this helps. Samantha -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Messages View on Inbox Exch2k3/Win2k3 When I open OWA the view I like to use is the messages view. When I use this view all I get is Loading in the message pane. If I switch to another view it works fine. This is happening to all other users on different browsers, so I am assuming its server side. Searched on KB with no luck. One article was talking about Netscape, but we are using IE. Anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upgrade from 5.5 to 2000
OK, I'm just about to upgrade from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 tomorrow. I've installed a secondary copy of Exchange 2000 in my AD domain. The plan was to do a swing upgrade and migrate all users and mailboxes over to the secondary copy of Exchange and then change my add my 5.5 box into the AD domain (it's in an old NT 4.0 domain now) and install Exchange 2000. However, would this be a feasible solution: do a modified swing where you migrate all users over to the secondary server as a backup of sorts for the messages and contacts and so on and then do a straight upgrade to the existing 5.5 server? I've already got all my connector settings and so on as I want them. Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Perhaps this IS the way a swing is supposed to work and I'm just kind of missing the point of this? I've already tested migrating a user over (me) to the secondary server and it worked perfectly (and man oh man is OWA 2K SO much better than the 5.5 version). Thanks in advance for any help or suggestions. Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SSL encryption before login to OWA
Well, I'm no expert but doing a netstat only shows a session active on
https, nothing at all on http, so I'd guess it's just the way IE shows
things..
regards,
Paul
--
Paul Hutchings
Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
Tel: 44 (0)24 7635 5378, Fax: 44 (0)24 7635 8378
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 September 2003 13:57
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SSL encryption before login to OWA
No, im only going by the padlock icon. Is there any other
way to tell for sure with out sniffing the conncetion. If
not I guess I have to find my sniffing hat and wipe off the dust.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SSL encryption before login to OWA
My understanding was that if you open any connection as
https:// that any
authentication is encrypted even though the padlock doesn't
appear until
they authenticate (or don't).
Are you sure that's not happening?
regards,
Paul
--
Paul Hutchings
Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
Tel: 44 (0)24 7635 5378, Fax: 44 (0)24 7635 8378
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 23 September 2003 13:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SSL encryption before login to OWA
I'm sure this is an easy fix but I cant figure out how to fix
it. I setup OWA to use SSL. My problem is that when a user
first connects and it prompts for the user to sign in It is
not encrypted. After loging in the once ith then prompts to
sign in for a second time and at that point It encrypts the
connection. Any Ideas would help.
Thanks
Matt
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget
ext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.+--xm ,)r( \y'i)l+-rrW{jxm^zx%S ^jZ2G(L\xfyb))
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox
I agreejust answering a question. We make sure that our users are not using the AOL window. I have seen his problem when AOL is involved. :) Samantha -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox You never use the AOL browser for OWA. IE works fine with AOL and that is what users should be using to access OWA. -Original Message- From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox I had problems with that with users who were accessing from an AOL windows. For instance, when they connected to AOL and tried using the current window to go to OWA, things like you are explaining happened. The user had to open another instance of IE to get OWA to display properly. Also, I saw this with a Proxy being the culprit. Had to make changes on the proxy. Hope this helps. Samantha -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Messages View on Inbox Exch2k3/Win2k3 When I open OWA the view I like to use is the messages view. When I use this view all I get is Loading in the message pane. If I switch to another view it works fine. This is happening to all other users on different browsers, so I am assuming its server side. Searched on KB with no luck. One article was talking about Netscape, but we are using IE. Anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Messages View on Inbox
Usually never ending Loading... means that the firewall is dropping something. There is a KB article about that. But then I am not sure why it works for other views. Sincerely, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging and Collaboration Spherion -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA Messages View on Inbox Exch2k3/Win2k3 When I open OWA the view I like to use is the messages view. When I use this view all I get is Loading in the message pane. If I switch to another view it works fine. This is happening to all other users on different browsers, so I am assuming its server side. Searched on KB with no luck. One article was talking about Netscape, but we are using IE. Anyone else experiencing this? Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sloooooowwwwww OST sync over dialup
Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sloooooowwwwww OST sync over dialup
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;163576 Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis Sent: 23 September 2003 14:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ:
RE: Exchange and SAN
Just to add my 2 bits We moved our Exchange 5.5 running on win2k from direct attached disk raid 5 to a IBM ESS 2105 Shark, and we saw about 300 to 400% performance increase. -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5 -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM To: 'Exchange Discussions' Subject: Exchange and SAN Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate it. Thanks, Mario *** The contents of this communication are intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this communication that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. *** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sloooooowwwwww OST sync over dialup
Actually, remove everything but ncacn_ip_tcp That is, unless your'e running IPX/SPX or VNS across your dial up. Named pipes and RPC are pretty horrific, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ:
RE: Sloooooowwwwww OST sync over dialup
Although when back in the office, plugged into the LAN, would you not want to use RPC? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Actually, remove everything but ncacn_ip_tcp That is, unless your'e running IPX/SPX or VNS across your dial up. Named pipes and RPC are pretty horrific, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sloooooowwwwww OST sync over dialup
Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sloooooowwwwww OST sync over dialup
Nope - you want to use IP all the time.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Although when back in the office, plugged into the LAN, would you not want to use RPC? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Actually, remove everything but ncacn_ip_tcp That is, unless your'e running IPX/SPX or VNS across your dial up. Named pipes and RPC are pretty horrific, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard
I set up a rule to have server reply using a specific message, but although the condition is met, nothing happens. I I read somewhere that there's a 32K size limit with RPC packets, which is I think what this is, but I checked the size of the reply and it would be only 535 Bytes. Before doing this, I had tried (unsuccessfully) a server-side Auto-Reply script (from CDOlive), but that didn't work either. I have EX5.5, on NT 4 SP6. Thanks --Alex Alborzfard -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Nope - you want to use IP all the time.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Although when back in the office, plugged into the LAN, would you not want to use RPC? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Actually, remove everything but ncacn_ip_tcp That is, unless your'e running IPX/SPX or VNS across your dial up. Named pipes and RPC are pretty horrific, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard
It's not the size of one rule but all of them. Is there more than one rule setup? From: Alex Alborzfard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:23:53 -0400 I set up a rule to have server reply using a specific message, but although the condition is met, nothing happens. I I read somewhere that there's a 32K size limit with RPC packets, which is I think what this is, but I checked the size of the reply and it would be only 535 Bytes. Before doing this, I had tried (unsuccessfully) a server-side Auto-Reply script (from CDOlive), but that didn't work either. I have EX5.5, on NT 4 SP6. Thanks --Alex Alborzfard -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Nope - you want to use IP all the time.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Although when back in the office, plugged into the LAN, would you not want to use RPC? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Actually, remove everything but ncacn_ip_tcp That is, unless your'e running IPX/SPX or VNS across your dial up. Named pipes and RPC are pretty horrific, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Move it along a bit. Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other than IP over it so I don't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. We have reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clients to an OST over dialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it over broadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it over dialup even after a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband or lan line, it takes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know the connection is faster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anything to sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck. Is there like a reg key or something that I can change to make this faster. We need to stick to OST files because we have public folders and calendars that need to be online. We are also using EX2000 SP3 if that matters but I think this is more Outlook than Exchange. Thanks, Alex _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web
RE: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard
No there's only 1 rule. This is a brand new mailbox. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard It's not the size of one rule but all of them. Is there more than one rule setup? From: Alex Alborzfard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:23:53 -0400 I set up a rule to have server reply using a specific message, but although the condition is met, nothing happens. I I read somewhere that there's a 32K size limit with RPC packets, which is I think what this is, but I checked the size of the reply and it would be only 535 Bytes. Before doing this, I had tried (unsuccessfully) a server-side Auto-Reply script (from CDOlive), but that didn't work either. I have EX5.5, on NT 4 SP6. Thanks --Alex Alborzfard -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Nope - you want to use IP all the time.. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Although when back in the office, plugged into the LAN, would you not want to use RPC? Regards, Rob Ellis IT Manager Samsara Group plc Tel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:59 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Actually, remove everything but ncacn_ip_tcp That is, unless your'e running IPX/SPX or VNS across your dial up. Named pipes and RPC are pretty horrific, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rob Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Set HKLM\software\microsoft\exchange\exchange provider\rpc_binding_order To ncacn_ip_tcp,ncalrpc,ncacn_spx,ncacn_np,netbios,ncacn_vns_spp In actual fact, yours will have 'ncalrpc' listed first. Moveit along a bit. Regards, Rob EllisIT ManagerSamsara Group plcTel 023 9224 7979Mob 07974 111867 MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message-From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2003 14:46 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialup Does anyone know any reg hacks to speed up RPC over dialup? -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony HlabseSent: Monday, September 22, 2003 10:29 AMTo: Exchange Discussions What? From: Gonzalez, Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: Slooww OST sync over dialupDate: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:23:22 -0400 Well it's over dialup and we don't pass anything other thanIP over it so Idon't think it's that. We can try it though. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Ellis Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:38 AMTo: Exchange Discussions RPC Binding order in the registry? Regards, Rob EllisIT ManagerSamsara Group plcTel 023 9224 7979 Mob 07974 111867MCP BEng(hons) -Original Message-From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 September 2003 13:27 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slooww OST sync over dialup I think I have asked this before but didn't really get any responses. Wehave reps in the field that sync their Outlook 2002 clientsto an OST overdialup. For some reason it is very slow. Now when they sync it overbroadband it takes about 30 seconds. When they sync it overdialup evenafter a full sync of their mailbox is done over broadband orlan line, ittakes about 2 hours. This doesn't make sense. I know theconnection isfaster but I don't think that's it. They don't have anythingto sync. I have changed the server timeout to 120 seconds with no luck.Is there likea reg key or something that I can change to
RE: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard
Do you have automatic replies to the internet enabled on your server? -Original Message- From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard I set up a rule to have server reply using a specific message, but although the condition is met, nothing happens. I I read somewhere that there's a 32K size limit with RPC packets, which is I think what this is, but I checked the size of the reply and it would be only 535 Bytes. Before doing this, I had tried (unsuccessfully) a server-side Auto-Reply script (from CDOlive), but that didn't work either. I have EX5.5, on NT 4 SP6. Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange and SAN
Yeah but that's not necessarily because it was a SAN. If you double the number of disks the databases are on for example your going to see a performance increase, whether it's DAS or SAN. Steve Evans SDSU Foundation -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Just to add my 2 bits We moved our Exchange 5.5 running on win2k from direct attached disk raid 5 to a IBM ESS 2105 Shark, and we saw about 300 to 400% performance increase. -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5 -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM To: 'Exchange Discussions' Subject: Exchange and SAN Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate it. Thanks, Mario *** The contents of this communication are intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this communication that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. *** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard
No but I enabled it, restarted IMS and still not getting the reply. -Original Message- From: Arlo Clizer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard Do you have automatic replies to the internet enabled on your server? -Original Message- From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard I set up a rule to have server reply using a specific message, but although the condition is met, nothing happens. I I read somewhere that there's a 32K size limit with RPC packets, which is I think what this is, but I checked the size of the reply and it would be only 535 Bytes. Before doing this, I had tried (unsuccessfully) a server-side Auto-Reply script (from CDOlive), but that didn't work either. I have EX5.5, on NT 4 SP6. Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard
Got the reply just now. Apparently there was some delay with Yahoo. Thanks for your help! Btw the server-side script is still not working. --Alex Alborzfard -Original Message- From: Arlo Clizer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard Do you have automatic replies to the internet enabled on your server? -Original Message- From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Problem with server reply in Rules Wizard I set up a rule to have server reply using a specific message, but although the condition is met, nothing happens. I I read somewhere that there's a 32K size limit with RPC packets, which is I think what this is, but I checked the size of the reply and it would be only 535 Bytes. Before doing this, I had tried (unsuccessfully) a server-side Auto-Reply script (from CDOlive), but that didn't work either. I have EX5.5, on NT 4 SP6. Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Active Directory Connector
Anyone know how (or if) you can fix a situation where the ADC was not installed first before ForestPrep and DomainPrep were run? Basically we cannot get the Public Folders to replicate because there's no ability to set up an intersite connection. Thanks, Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange and SAN
Use redundant fiber channel cards and something like EMC PowerPath software. Sincerely, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging and Collaboration Spherion -Original Message- From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 6:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN I can't get past the concept that if the SAN dies (ie FC card or Power Supplies) then all teh servers you have attached to it are dead in the water. Sounds like a quasi mainframe to me. I still prefer many eggs and many baskets and take the disk hit. Mind you I would be interested in SAN technology just to put the tape drives external to the server room (like a few miles away via fibre) cheers Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20/09/2003 7:52:42 a.m. I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox. My favorite one I've heard lately: Well, it uses fiber to attach to the SAN so it's much faster for Exchange. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN As long as you don't buy into the great white lie of SAN's, you're golden. That lie is that there's no performance hit created by taking a single large array and carving it into a bunch of LUNs - there's a physics issue there. Other than that, its just a bunch of disks, just like the SCSI attached ones you probably have now. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange and SAN Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate it. Thanks, Mario ** * The contents of this communication are intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this communication that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. ** * _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Northland State of the Environment Report 2002 now online at www.nrc.govt.nz ** NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange and SAN
That's not entirely true. There is a decreasing rate of return from the number of spindles, as the overhead exceeds the benefits. I'd wager the increase was as much from caching, disk speed and controller throughput as anything else. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Steve Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Yeah but that's not necessarily because it was a SAN. If you double the number of disks the databases are on for example your going to see a performance increase, whether it's DAS or SAN. Steve Evans SDSU Foundation -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 6:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Just to add my 2 bits We moved our Exchange 5.5 running on win2k from direct attached disk raid 5 to a IBM ESS 2105 Shark, and we saw about 300 to 400% performance increase. -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN Clarification Windows 2000 and Exchange 5.5 -Original Message- From: Rosales, Mario Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 11:17 AM To: 'Exchange Discussions' Subject: Exchange and SAN Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues with it? I've always had a raid array attached to it which could be the same thing but did not know if there were any major differences? Any help would be appreciate it. Thanks, Mario ** ** *** The contents of this communication are intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication and notify the sender. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this communication that do not relate to the official business of my company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. ** ** *** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Active Directory Connector
Anyone know how (or if) you can fix a situation where the ADC was not installed first before ForestPrep and DomainPrep were run? Basically we cannot get the Public Folders to replicate because there's no ability to set up an intersite connection. Thanks, Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail enable Public Folders
I have a box running Win2k3 member of the domain and E2k3 Enterprise. I used a client computer with Outlook 2003 to create a new public folder. I go to the E2k3 Server, as I need to mail-enable the new public folder. I launch Exchange's System Manager and click the + sign next to Folders at the bottom of the left list. I then click Public Folders. The system manager then prompts for a username and password! I have checked the delegation properties and the 2 users there have full control - yet neither let me in. I have rebooted the server and still cannot get past the username password box. Any thoughts/help would be appreciated. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Schedule backup/copy of single public folder
Exchange 5.5sp4 running on Windows 2000 SP3, 180 day deleted item retention enabled on public and private stores. We have a public folder with around 2000 contacts in it. Recently the people who look after those contacts have been making a lot of changes, and a couple of times have managed to stuff up the contents of the folder (losing all the assigned categories). I can't watch them whilst they work (and wouldn't want to) and whilst I suspect it's been down to finger trouble I look after the mail servers so if they need the contents back as they were it comes my way. There's been nothing in the dumpster, I'm assuming changing a contact doesn't count as a deletion of the original in the way moving it would? I don't do bricks level backups, only online backups using ntbackup, and it's a PITA to restore the databases to a recover server as there's about 50gb in all to deal with. One thought was to set something up that every X hours simply copies the contents of the folder to a backup folder which is read-only to all but the service account (or whatever the copy job would run under). I'm unsure what, if any options there may be to acheive this automagically - appreciate any thoughts (guillotining their fingers isn't an option). regards, Paul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Schedule backup/copy of single public folder
I thought you could just select 'recover deleted items' by highlighting the public folder, there is no dumpster per say? -Original Message- From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:17 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Schedule backup/copy of single public folder Exchange 5.5sp4 running on Windows 2000 SP3, 180 day deleted item retention enabled on public and private stores. We have a public folder with around 2000 contacts in it. Recently the people who look after those contacts have been making a lot of changes, and a couple of times have managed to stuff up the contents of the folder (losing all the assigned categories). I can't watch them whilst they work (and wouldn't want to) and whilst I suspect it's been down to finger trouble I look after the mail servers so if they need the contents back as they were it comes my way. There's been nothing in the dumpster, I'm assuming changing a contact doesn't count as a deletion of the original in the way moving it would? I don't do bricks level backups, only online backups using ntbackup, and it's a PITA to restore the databases to a recover server as there's about 50gb in all to deal with. One thought was to set something up that every X hours simply copies the contents of the folder to a backup folder which is read-only to all but the service account (or whatever the copy job would run under). I'm unsure what, if any options there may be to acheive this automagically - appreciate any thoughts (guillotining their fingers isn't an option). regards, Paul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Active Directory Connector
Microsoft actually recommends it a best practice to run Exchange 2003 forestprep/domainprep before installing the Exch2003 ADC. SO your issue is something else. We have done this exact scenario several times in our lab. Actually the lab is one server running VMware GSX, all 6 servers used in the test are virtual, btw this really works well and saves tons of money. Anthony L. Sollars Technology Consultant Information Technology Division, PACCAR Inc. 480 Houser Way North, Renton Wa., 98055 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( 425.254.4845 ) 425.681.4190 2 425.793.6000 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Active Directory Connector Anyone know how (or if) you can fix a situation where the ADC was not installed first before ForestPrep and DomainPrep were run? Basically we cannot get the Public Folders to replicate because there's no ability to set up an intersite connection. Thanks, Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist
If you want to do anything about this, go to below link and sign the petition to stop Verisign: http://www.whois.sc/verisign-dns/?view=latest Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist [My apologies for the cross-post, but this has the potential to impact just about everybody who uses the Internet...] As of a little while ago (it is around 7:45 PM US Eastern on Mon 15 Sep 2003 as I write this), VeriSign added a wildcard A record to the .COM and .NET TLD DNS zones. The IP address returned is 64.94.110.11, which reverses to sitefinder.verisign.com. What that means in plain English is that most mis-typed domain names that would formerly have resulted in a helpful error message now results in a VeriSign advertising opportunity. For example, if my domain name was somecompany.com, and somebody typed soemcompany.com by mistake, they would get VeriSign's advertising. (VeriSign is a company which purchased Network Solutions, another company which was given the task by the US government of running the .COM and .NET top-level domains (TLDs). VeriSign has been exploiting the Internet's DNS infrastructure ever since.) This will have the immediate effect of making network trouble-shooting much more difficult. Before, a mis-typed domain name in an email address, web browser, or other network configuration item would result in an obvious error message. You might not have known what to do about it, but at least you knew something was wrong. Now, though, you will have to guess. Every time. Some have pointed out that this will make an important anti-spam check impossible. A common anti-spam measure is to check and make sure the domain name of the sender really exists. (While this is easy to force, every little bit helps.) Since all .COM and .NET domain names now exist, that anti-spam check is useless. VeriSign's commentary: http://www.verisign.com/resources/gd/sitefinder/implementation.pdf http://www.verisign.com/resources/gd/sitefinder/bestpractices.pdf Third-party reference: http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/d04afc52ae9da2ee80256d9c0018be8b -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 Firewall Ports
Inbound mail: TCP 25 Access OWA: TCP 443 (configure to allow SSL only) Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Lape Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange 2000 Firewall Ports Windows 2000 Server Exchange 2000 Server I recently got a Cisco PIX and I need to know what ports are absolutely necessary to allow inbound traffic through the firewall for people to be able to send mail in, access OWA, etc. I am reading that port 135 needs to be allowed inbound but due to all the hype with RPC these days I was wondering if the port was necessary. Thanks in advance. Justin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mailbox moves completed, but....
What version of server? If it's a 5.5-to-5.5 move, you can move the mailbox back (take a backup first!) and you'll get an error message, but the old artifact mailbox will delete. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mitchell Mike Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 3:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Duncan Scott Subject: Mailbox moves completed, but Good afternoon, I have completed moving 1700+ mailboxes from one server to the other. We are using Outlook 98 Exchange Windows 2000. After the moves were completed I have a few stray mailboxes that are hanging around that are duplicated on the two servers. Under total K they show 0K, even though the mailbox on the correct server (the one moved to) show the correct space 58,098K. I am afraid if we delete the mailbox on the almost empty server, we will delete the real mailbox. So we don't want to do that. We could dump the mailbox to a PST, delete the mailbox and restore the mailbox, but that would cause problems because all communications to the old mailbox would be severed and people couldn't do replies to the eMAILs that are sitting in the mailbox. Meetings couldn't be canceled. What a quandary. What do we do? Just turn off the server and clean it off.. I don't think so. Thanks for any help you might have. Regards, Mike Mitchell Systems email Administrator Alverno Information Services * [EMAIL PROTECTED] *:(317) 783-9341 EXT. 6211 Education is when you read the fine print, experience is what you get when you don't! - Pete Seeger _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
