RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Actually, that sounds like the network password is out of sync between the client and the domain. Try closing all applications, ensuring you're logged into only one machine, and then change your network password from that machine. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Three times? That reminds me... If you have the Exchange Server scripting add-on enabled in Outlook, MAPI Outlook will open three connections to the Exchange server (without the Exchange scraping add-on, only two). One for each store (mailbox and public) and one to the scripting system folder. I wonder if that is related to the general problem. I also saw similar issues back in 1998 when we had a network issue and the RPC/NETBIOS calls failed. Changing the RPC binding order helped these days but since the Outlook 2002 process to connect to an Exchange server has changed I am not sure if the former issue might happen here too. -Original Message- From: Beavers, Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Seriously, Siegfried, Andy, at least half the time I access the PFs (of which I am owner) using OL2002 I get a logon prompt box in which I enter my same logon credentials (THREE times because it rejects them each time) and then goes ahead and let's me in the PF with appropriate access. Yes, I know the scripts should be rewritten. Terry L. Beavers Technology Assessment Application Information Technologies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida _ 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]
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Seriously, Siegfried, Andy, at least half the time I access the PFs (of which I am owner) using OL2002 I get a logon prompt box in which I enter my same logon credentials (THREE times because it rejects them each time) and then goes ahead and let's me in the PF with appropriate access. Yes, I know the scripts should be rewritten. Terry L. Beavers Technology Assessment Application Information Technologies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida _ 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: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Jeez, how is that an upside? After we spent the resources to develop this stuff to make it work right during the 5.5 era, now we're told to rewrite everything. So where does this leave us? In another 2 years, given Microsoft's penchant for change, none of it will work with Yukon and here we are again. Yes this is great for system integrators, consultants, etc. but we can't just charge our customers (students) more money to cover all these redevelopment costs. I won't argue about the fact that maybe the scripts should be updated. But that would be a lot of work. And in these times of tight budgets and layoffs (my team has less than HALF the staff we had this time last year but several new major development projects), it doesn't get a chance to boil up in the priority lists and instead becomes a major pain in the derriere and another reason for people to question Microsoft's customer/developer commitment. This is a major problem in an environment (academic) where you have to sell Microsoft to management and users as a server environment (as you know, the sun never stops shining in academia, if you know what I mean) I know, not your problem. We have the same issue with Peoplesoft (at least their backward compatibility is somewhat better, though) and who knows what oracle will do with that. Terry L. Beavers Technology Assessment Application Information Technologies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Well, then at least there's some room for improvement with the server side code. That's an upside I suppose. :) _ 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: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Terry, I feel for you. I really do. The lighthearted upside I meant was that rather than sorry, you're screwed, there's no possible way to improve the situation, you at least have an option available to you, however unpalatable it might be. Public Folders are very likely to change again sometime in the future. The Yukon implications are a complete unknown right now, but I'd gamble that things from a development standpoint will not look the same. At TechEd, the Yukon version of Exchange was placed at 2006 at the soonest. Given the conservative nature you folks have expressed about hotfixes, I'm led to believe 2007+ might be the soonest you would go to that platform. Given a 4+ year window, getting your rules/event script stuff changed to event sinks that can fire more reliably on all items does seem like a possible path that makes financial sense. Microsoft did end up leaving the 5.5 Event Script capability in Exchange 2003, which they had said at one point they would not do, so at least some scant attention has been paid to backward compatibility. In this case, though it's healthy to be wary of hotfixes, I'd sure try it in the lab and look to implement it if it helps the rules work better. One of the problems I see is that while everyone I know says they have public folder problems, few have actually made the necessary PSS calls to make them get the right amount of attention from the Exchange team. With the release of the hotfix that changes the default to IPM.Note, it's obvious that some threshold of documented pain was reached. I filed a bug on this during the Exchange 2000 JDP during Beta 2. I filed it again on Exchange 2003. And I will keep telling Microsoft what I need and what I perceive others need from Public Folders. It's obvious what influence I carry though. :) I think the permissions problems are worthy of further discussion. It sounds to me like there is more than one issue. Is that correct? Do you have problems both simply accessing the public folders and also accessing the public folder rights? Cheers, Andy ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Beavers, Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:59 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Jeez, how is that an upside? After we spent the resources to develop this stuff to make it work right during the 5.5 era, now we're told to rewrite everything. So where does this leave us? In another 2 years, given Microsoft's penchant for change, none of it will work with Yukon and here we are again. Yes this is great for system integrators, consultants, etc. but we can't just charge our customers (students) more money to cover all these redevelopment costs. I won't argue about the fact that maybe the scripts should be updated. But that would be a lot of work. And in these times of tight budgets and layoffs (my team has less than HALF the staff we had this time last year but several new major development projects), it doesn't get a chance to boil up in the priority lists and instead becomes a major pain in the derriere and another reason for people to question Microsoft's customer/developer commitment. This is a major problem in an environment (academic) where you have to sell Microsoft to management and users as a server environment (as you know, the sun never stops shining in academia, if you know what I mean) I know, not your problem. We have the same issue with Peoplesoft (at least their backward compatibility is somewhat better, though) and who knows what oracle will do with that. Terry L. Beavers Technology Assessment Application Information Technologies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Well, then at least there's some room for improvement with the server side code. That's an upside I suppose. :) _ 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: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Three times? That reminds me... If you have the Exchange Server scripting add-on enabled in Outlook, MAPI Outlook will open three connections to the Exchange server (without the Exchange scraping add-on, only two). One for each store (mailbox and public) and one to the scripting system folder. I wonder if that is related to the general problem. I also saw similar issues back in 1998 when we had a network issue and the RPC/NETBIOS calls failed. Changing the RPC binding order helped these days but since the Outlook 2002 process to connect to an Exchange server has changed I am not sure if the former issue might happen here too. -Original Message- From: Beavers, Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Seriously, Siegfried, Andy, at least half the time I access the PFs (of which I am owner) using OL2002 I get a logon prompt box in which I enter my same logon credentials (THREE times because it rejects them each time) and then goes ahead and let's me in the PF with appropriate access. Yes, I know the scripts should be rewritten. Terry L. Beavers Technology Assessment Application Information Technologies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida _ 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]
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
See also Andy's comments. I really don't think it's in a 2 year timeframe. I saw the first Yukon demo 2 years ago and the beta just started now... As for anything will change in the next version of Exchange Server: yes, no doubts. Same happened in Windows 2003 IIS6 and Sharepoint Portal Server 2003 already and other products will follow. SPS2003 is actually a pretty good example to see which architecture we can except in Exchange 2005 (or whatever it'll be named). This is from a developer point of view the same hassle as from a customer who is using that stuff, I agree completely with you on that. However, I dare to ask myself if it is worth to stick with the old technology and just live with restarting a hanging service (or to make it worse: reboot the server) every now and then or probably jump into the cold water and rewrite the stuff to finally get a more stable system at all. I do understand that nowadays everyone (including my company) has small budgets (can you say no budget?) and less resources to work with. But as Andy said, if you plan to stick with the currently existing technology (which makes totally sense from a business point of view and I would do the same if working in your environment with that amount of customers/students) I'd really consider to iron out one of the potential showstoppers by migration the code base. I was really scared when I red that you guys need to start the Exchange 2000 Event Service every now and then. I know that it was never 100% reliable to use Exchange 5.5 Scripting agent technology (as you know too, I'm sure), hence now with Windows 2000 SP4 and Exchange 2000 SP4 around the corner I'd say it is safe to move forward and stick with it for the next 3-4 years as you did with the Exchange 5.5 scripting stuff (I remember our first e-mail contact back in 1999 and when we met at TechEd 2001). It seems to have done it work for almost 6 years fairly well. So, it doesn't hurt to retire it, or? BTW, If you need any particular help I'd be happy to do so. I've a gazillion of code snippets around I'd share with you guys to get you started. -Original Message- From: Beavers, Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Jeez, how is that an upside? After we spent the resources to develop this stuff to make it work right during the 5.5 era, now we're told to rewrite everything. So where does this leave us? In another 2 years, given Microsoft's penchant for change, none of it will work with Yukon and here we are again. Yes this is great for system integrators, consultants, etc. but we can't just charge our customers (students) more money to cover all these redevelopment costs. I won't argue about the fact that maybe the scripts should be updated. But that would be a lot of work. And in these times of tight budgets and layoffs (my team has less than HALF the staff we had this time last year but several new major development projects), it doesn't get a chance to boil up in the priority lists and instead becomes a major pain in the derriere and another reason for people to question Microsoft's customer/developer commitment. This is a major problem in an environment (academic) where you have to sell Microsoft to management and users as a server environment (as you know, the sun never stops shining in academia, if you know what I mean) I know, not your problem. We have the same issue with Peoplesoft (at least their backward compatibility is somewhat better, though) and who knows what oracle will do with that. Terry L. Beavers Technology Assessment Application Information Technologies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 1:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Well, then at least there's some room for improvement with the server side code. That's an upside I suppose. :) _ 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]
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Wouldn't have helped too. Turns out that KB 817809 has several errors, including to mention an incorrect registry key value. PSS is aware of it working on correcting the article. However, even using the correct values on Exchange 2003 didn't work for me yet... -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 11:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note A goat siggi .. no chicken .. - Original Message - From: Siegfried Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:41 PM Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I sacrificed a chicken. Still no go... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Did you dance around the hat chanting incantations first? 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 Siegfried Weber Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 12:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Follow up: doesn't look like it included in Exchange 2003 RC1. Tried it and it is still IPM.Post... -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to see if it is included there and post back here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to see if it is included there and post back here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Follow up: doesn't look like it included in Exchange 2003 RC1. Tried it and it is still IPM.Post... -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to see if it is included there and post back here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Did you dance around the hat chanting incantations first? 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 Siegfried Weber Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 12:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Follow up: doesn't look like it included in Exchange 2003 RC1. Tried it and it is still IPM.Post... -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to see if it is included there and post back here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
I sacrificed a chicken. Still no go... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Did you dance around the hat chanting incantations first? 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 Siegfried Weber Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 12:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Follow up: doesn't look like it included in Exchange 2003 RC1. Tried it and it is still IPM.Post... -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to see if it is included there and post back here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions
Re: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
A goat siggi .. no chicken .. - Original Message - From: Siegfried Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:41 PM Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I sacrificed a chicken. Still no go... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Did you dance around the hat chanting incantations first? 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 Siegfried Weber Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 12:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Follow up: doesn't look like it included in Exchange 2003 RC1. Tried it and it is still IPM.Post... -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 6:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? Exactly my thoughts. I'm going to run some tests with RC1 to see if it is included there and post back here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 3:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I'd wager that Siegfried is fully aware of the differences, probably more so than most on the list. The question I have is what's the status of this hotfix with regards to E2k3? Is there an expectation that this functionality will be included in the RTM release? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. Well, I believe I do understand the difference pretty good :-)) I've been using PF's for mailing lists since Exchange 5.0 back in 1997 and I am using them (including this one hosted on an Exchange 2000 PF) now with more than 50 public folders subscribed to mailing lists, newsletter and other stuff. I am not required to use the hotfix because I am a developer and the e-mail items from external senders do show up as IPM.Note since I deployed Exchange 2000 back when it was released. But for those who are not able to work around this issue themselves the mentioned hotfix is exactly what they need. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Well, that could exactly cause the problem why rules stop to work too. And I have tried a couple of the old style Exchange Event Scripts on Exchange 2000 SP2/SP3 without running into issues. So, if I'd be you I'd probably start investigating first here. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 1:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Events work great when they work and we have some running on our PFs and mailboxes, but the event service has to be restarted many times per week because of failures that cause events in the logs that when you look up have nothing to do with your problem. No, I haven't called PSS, but I should, you're right. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
I know about the hotfix and am not crazy about installing hotfixes, so we're waiting at this point. Nothing accesses the M: drive on our E2K servers, it's excluded from vscan. We don't do single folder backups and our backups run after midnight. OL2002 works sometimes here, too. Nothing is constant. I know rules fire on notes, but everything from the internet comes into PF as posts. Some of our rules just stop working at times, though, on notes with nothing in the logs and with logging turned up to max. If you've never had a lot of PFs in 5.5 and now you've gone to E2K, you can't really understand the differences. -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Events work great when they work and we have some running on our PFs and mailboxes, but the event service has to be restarted many times per week because of failures that cause events in the logs that when you look up have nothing to do with your problem. No, I haven't called PSS, but I should, you're right. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM Posted
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
When you say you're using the Event Service, it sounds like you're using the old Exchange 5.5 event scripts rather than Exchange 2000 event sinks. Is that true? ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Saturday, June 21, 2003 6:44 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Events work great when they work and we have some running on our PFs and mailboxes, but the event service has to be restarted many times per week because of failures that cause events in the logs that when you look up have nothing to do with your problem. No, I haven't called PSS, but I should, you're right. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Yes, unfortunately. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 8:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note When you say you're using the Event Service, it sounds like you're using the old Exchange 5.5 event scripts rather than Exchange 2000 event sinks. Is that true? ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Saturday, June 21, 2003 6:44 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Events work great when they work and we have some running on our PFs and mailboxes, but the event service has to be restarted many times per week because of failures that cause events in the logs that when you look up have nothing to do with your problem. No, I haven't called PSS, but I should, you're right. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Well, then at least there's some room for improvement with the server side code. That's an upside I suppose. :) ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Saturday, June 21, 2003 7:04 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Yes, unfortunately. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 8:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note When you say you're using the Event Service, it sounds like you're using the old Exchange 5.5 event scripts rather than Exchange 2000 event sinks. Is that true? ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Saturday, June 21, 2003 6:44 AM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Events work great when they work and we have some running on our PFs and mailboxes, but the event service has to be restarted many times per week because of failures that cause events in the logs that when you look up have nothing to do with your problem. No, I haven't called PSS, but I should, you're right. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 8:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm) your co-worker found is designed for the Exchange Event Service which is only provided in Exchange 2000/2003 for backwards compatibility and I would not recommend using it with Exchange 2000/2003 due to being not reliable. 2. The issue you are facing not being able to reply to public folder messages will neither be fixed with KB817809 nor the script you mentioned or the one Andy Webb pointed you to. This is a limitation of Outlook Web Access 2000. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Windows 2000 SP3 Exchange 2000 SP3 Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it because we are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder when it is accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting issues with this Script that a coworker of mine found online. http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm All help is appreciated, Joshua Joshua Morgan Method IQ Senior Network Engineer Email: [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: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Question then Why did they change the functionality?It worked in 5.5 Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm) your co-worker found is designed for the Exchange Event Service which is only provided in Exchange 2000/2003 for backwards compatibility and I would not recommend using it with Exchange 2000/2003 due to being not reliable. 2. The issue you are facing not being able to reply to public folder messages will neither be fixed with KB817809 nor the script you mentioned or the one Andy Webb pointed you to. This is a limitation of Outlook Web Access 2000. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Windows 2000 SP3 Exchange 2000 SP3 Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it because we are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder when it is accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting issues with this Script that a coworker of mine found online. http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm All help is appreciated, Joshua Joshua Morgan Method IQ Senior Network Engineer Email: [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]
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Question then Why did they change the functionality?It worked in 5.5 Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm) your co-worker found is designed for the Exchange Event Service which is only provided in Exchange 2000/2003 for backwards compatibility and I would not recommend using it with Exchange 2000/2003 due to being not reliable. 2. The issue you are facing not being able to reply to public folder messages will neither be fixed with KB817809 nor the script you mentioned or the one Andy Webb pointed you to. This is a limitation of Outlook Web Access 2000. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Windows 2000 SP3 Exchange 2000 SP3 Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it because we are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder when it is accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting issues with this Script that a coworker of mine found online. http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm All help is appreciated, Joshua Joshua Morgan Method IQ Senior Network Engineer Email: [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] _ 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: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Question then Why did they change the functionality?It worked in 5.5 Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm) your co-worker found is designed for the Exchange Event Service which is only provided in Exchange 2000/2003 for backwards compatibility and I would not recommend using it with Exchange 2000/2003 due to being not reliable. 2. The issue you are facing not being able to reply to public folder messages will neither be fixed with KB817809 nor the script you mentioned or the one Andy Webb pointed you to. This is a limitation of Outlook Web Access 2000. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Windows 2000 SP3 Exchange 2000 SP3 Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it because we are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder when it is accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting issues with this Script that a coworker of mine found online. http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm All help is appreciated, Joshua
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
As for being posts instead of notes, see Andy's reply and call Microsoft for a free of charge fix. I've never used rules much on PF's hence I cannot comment on that. I do understand that a rule doesn't fire if it is a post item but it should fire on a note item. I'd be interested to hear if you have any additional info what's going on. Especially if the store is hit by other applications like a MAPI based backup (single folder backup thingy maybe?) or an antivirus scanner (either MAPI or ESE/VSAPI based)? Also, you do know that you should stay away from the M: Drive, don't you? The symptoms (like the permissions issue - I just tested with Outlook 2002 SP2 and it works here) you describe point me into the direction that you are running some piece of software which accesses the M: Drive (like a file based backup or AV scanner) and causes some of your grief. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 12:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Question then Why did they change the functionality? It worked in 5.5 Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
I assume you are asking about the reply from a PF with OWA issue. For the post vs. note issue see Andy's reply. Since Exchange 2000/2003 OWA has been developed from scratch a lot of architectural changes happened. While this gave us an OWA architecture that is pretty reliable and scalable (In OWA 5.5 days hitting it with more than 300 simultaneous users could bring your server close to 100% resource usage) it has some drawbacks. One drawback is that the ability to run any action which requires access to your mailbox (like a reply forward or sending an e-mail to a contact from a public folder contact form) is not possible while you are connected to the public folder store. The reason is pretty simple: when you open a connection to a store you log off from the other store in that instance of the browser. Because OWA 2000/2003 is a client server architecture (with the ability to deploy frontend/backend systems to distribute load) the browser instance can only logon to one store at a time. So, without having a connection to your mailbox you cannot send an e-mail. I understand that there are work arounds but almost all of those I do know would require server-side code execution which would (again - as we had in 5.5) way more load on the server and as far as I understand this is not the desired results. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 9:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Question then Why did they change the functionality? It worked in 5.5 Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com/changemessageclass.htm) your co-worker found is designed for the Exchange Event Service which is only provided in Exchange 2000/2003 for backwards compatibility and I would not recommend using it with Exchange 2000/2003 due to being not reliable. 2. The issue you are facing not being able to reply to public folder messages will neither be fixed with KB817809 nor the script you mentioned or the one Andy Webb pointed you to. This is a limitation of Outlook Web Access 2000. Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Windows 2000 SP3 Exchange 2000 SP3 Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it because we are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder when it is accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting issues with this Script that a coworker of mine found online. http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm All help is appreciated, Joshua Joshua Morgan Method IQ Senior Network Engineer Email: [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] _ 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: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed toward Sharepoint databases, there's probably not much harm in making PF's actually do mail correctly going forward. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:31 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Question then Why did they change the functionality?It worked in 5.5 Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note 1. The script (which is a slightly modified version of http://www.cdolive.com
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
I remember a fix for permissions problems in Outlook 2002. IIRC it was rolled into Office XP SP2. And I am not going to deploy FE/BE just for the sake of PF replies. I can live with my custom (classic) ASP Exchange Web form to accomplish that ;-) Off to explore the possibilities now to turn a Sharepoint Portal Server 2003/Windows Sharepoint Services custom list into a shared mail repository :-)) Cheers:Siegfried runat=server / Development Lead, CDOLive LLC - The Microsoft Messaging and Collaboration Application Experts http://www.cdolive.com -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 2:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note I completely agree with you. We have tons of PF's designed to receive mail as well. I have heard of the permissions problem you describe as well - my wife's company is facing that now too I think on some of their 30,000+ public folders. Rather than rules, perhaps some Event Sinks designed to work on your most common applications would be worth developing for the public folders. Not as easy as rules, but once done, you could give the users a fairly easy interface to configure the folder the way it needs to behave. Have you filed issues with PSS on these problems? I hope so. If they never get the issues filed, they don't have the visibility to the degree of the problem. If you have a TAM, raise it there too. Continue the campaign to get the functionality back that we had in 5.5 - Public Folders as a shared mail repository. That simply disappeared in E2K. It has only slightly returned in E2K3. with the ability to reply/forward using OWA through a FrontEnd server. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:06 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note That's too bad. We have thousands of PFs and have always encouraged people to opt for a PF rather than a mailbox anytime they need somewhere to receive email to be viewed by people who already had a mailbox. In 5.5, PFs worked pretty much flawlessly. In 2000, they're terrible. The rules just stop working intermittently. The PFs that receive mostly outside mail are now posts, so the rules don't work at all on those anymore. The user role permissions are finally cleaned up so that Exchange 2000 can interpret them. We only have replicas on one of our 2000 servers now since replication caused too much latency. Sometimes, even though we have owner permissions on all of the PFs, if we use Outlook 2002 to view the properties, we're told we don't have permission, but if we view them in OL2000, we can make whatever changes an owner should be able to make. Searching for something in PFs used to be a breeze when they were on our 5.5 servers, now, you may or may not find what you're looking for even though you know it's in there. We're getting to the point that it would be easier to create mailboxes for the PFs that we constantly get called on, the ones with rules that stop working, mostly, and that's such a waste to have to create a mailbox when all you really need is a PF. I'd guess we got maybe 10 PF calls in the 5 years we've been running Exchange for actual problems with the server, not the usual, user doesn't understand the permissions calls, and now that we've moved our PFs to E2K, we get at least 10 calls a week with PF server issues, if not more. We've turned logging up to highest on everything to do with PFs and nothing ever shows up in the logs to give us a clue as to why they sometimes work and sometimes don't. When the forwarding rules stop working, a server restart is the only thing that fixes it. I'm really beginning to hate PFs. When I went to MEC2000, in one of the classes, they said that in E2K, you'd be able to change permissions on PFs without replacing permissions - what happened to that? Wouldn't that be helpful when you have thousands of PFs? I know, PFAdmin, which may or may not work correctly. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 5:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note The line is that it was actually broken in 5.5 and they fixed it in E2K. Why there can't be a choice between Post type public folders and Note (email message) type public folders I don't understand. Actually I do - $$$. There /could/ be a choice if enough people griped about it. At this point, E2K3 is pretty much in the can and so it won't change much there. Since anything collaborative about public folders seems headed
RE: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note
Lots of experience with the issue. Haven't tried the fix out yet though. :) Siegfried Weber did an Event sink that would change the message class on a folder-by-folder basis. There's also http://www.ivasoft.biz/posttonote.html which is an event sink too. ERM (Exchange Resource Manager) Released! http://www.swinc.com/erm -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 3:58 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Subject: IPM.Post VS. IPM.Note Windows 2000 SP3 Exchange 2000 SP3 Looks like Microsoft released this yesterday. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=817809 Has anybody had any experience with this issue? We see it because we are unable to reply or forward a message in a Public Folder when it is accessed through OWA. I was wondering if anyone had any workarounds until the SP is released, currently I am troubleshooting issues with this Script that a coworker of mine found online. http://www.netcomitc.com/post2note/esa.htm All help is appreciated, Joshua Joshua Morgan Method IQ Senior Network Engineer Email: [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]
