Dear All,
We use public folders for enterprise wide address books
However, when someone wants to send an email to someone contained in one of
these public folders, they have to go into it, right click the contact, and
select new message
I have been asked if it is possible to have these public
Right-click the public folder / Properties / Outlook Address Book tab /
tick the Show this folder as an email address book box.
When they compose a new message and click To... they'll be able to
select the public folder as an address book from the drop-down list.
Neil
-Original
Thanks !
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 September 2002 09:58
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sending to recipients in a public folder
Right-click the public folder / Properties / Outlook Address Book tab / tick
the Show this folder as
That is true, since the offline defrag process essentially rewrites the
database ( A second copy) without the whitespace. It is possible to defrag
to a network drive, but it is time consuming.
Unless you're running out of diskspace, or are running up against the 16GB
limit, leave the Store
The size of the temp database is also dependent on the amount of
whitespace. It doesn't rewrite the whitespace.
William
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Thank you that is what it was
-Original Message-
From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 7:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN
Same IP scheme as the others?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain.
-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: public folder
The size of the temp database is also dependent on the amount of
Richard,
I had to do an offline defrag a few weeks ago when the store filled to
16Gb. Remember you can use a mapped drive as the 'working' space for the
defrag. I guess it'll be a little slower, but it worked OK for us.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Tener, Richard
Tony -
We just completed the switch. We're just a small site (single exchange server).
I'd like to see a summary of any private responses you get!
Biggest problem we've had has been with the new improved Outlook Web Access. Users
have had problems with it being EXTREMELY slow. Slow as
Hey all,
This is really off topic, but I am having problems find a solution.
There are a number of workstations that are repeatedly trying to hack my
admin password on two of my subnets. I can see when they try their
password attempts and they are using basic Microsoft Authentication.
ping workstation_name ???
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-Original Message-
From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 September 2002 14:19
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OT: Tracing
ping workstationname
- Original Message -
From: Charles Carerros [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 08:19
Subject: OT: Tracing Computers making repeated Logon Requests
Hey all,
This is really off topic, but I am having
A fitting end to a circular discussion.
-Original Message-
From: Wilson, Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 9:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMC Logging Levels? (take 2)
But seriously the exception is the colonoscopy which if it detects
Guess I should have put in all the relevant information,
I'm not running a firewall (this wasn't my decision so you don't have to
tell me how stupid that is) or an ISA server which means this attack can
be coming from anywhere. Also, my attempts to ping the workstation name
come up with host
Chuck,
You didn't mention much about your infrastructure; but *if* the workstations in
question are Win2k (and are set to update the DNS), you can do an nslookup on the
hostname.
If you provide DHCP to them, you might be able to find the IP that the DHCP server
gave out to the hostname.
I am running NAVMSE version 2.17 build 75 on my exchange 5.5 server. Are
there any newer versions available for exchange 5.5? I have background
scanning enabled (and combo mode) and still get errors (from outlook) when
sending emails with attachments. Outlook tells me the delivery failed, and
You're right, it is off topic.
PING workstation
Maybe I'm missing something.
-Original Message-
From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:19 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: OT: Tracing Computers making repeated Logon
Version: 2.18 (Build 76)
-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 09:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Latest NAV for Exchange 5.5 ??
I am running NAVMSE version 2.17 build 75 on my exchange 5.5 server. Are
there any
Do a KB search for OpenRetryDelay. It might solve
your problem.
Cheers,
Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK
-Original Message-
From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 September 2002
Okay, here is all that I know about my infrastructure besides what I
mentioned. Its all UNIX based and I have not access to any of it. The
routers and switches (and the fiber optic backbone) is all controlled by
a different department.
My W2K servers do not run DNS or DHCP, however I do have
If you can't do a ping systemname and you are running wins, they are
probably going to be coming from the UNIX system. These will not be
registered in your WINS database. Have you tried to ping using the FQDN?
-Original Message-
From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
nbtstat -a workstationname
Gives something like this (note IP address and MAC address):
E:\WINNTnbtstat -a nts51
\Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{EF089F68-2FA3-4D88-B995-489E72F64BBF}:
Node IpAddress: [0.0.0.0] Scope Id: []
Host not found.
Local Area Connection 2:
Node IpAddress: [167.178.70.30]
As far as the slowness of OWA it is usually a resource issue. I have heard
if OWA slows down it is because many users are hitting the IIS portion of
your server. It is then time to look at a separate IIS server to offload
that service. Let Exchange sit by itself no DC or any other service.
Hi We have a SQL database with contact info, are there any products to get
this into a public folder and keep them synchronized? I don't want to
export and import, need both systems to be using the same data.
We are now on 5.5 but plan to go to exchange 2000 end of year.
thanks
I always thought that write-back cache should be always turned off, whether it has
battery or not.
-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 6:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
hrm... possibly you
How about you tell the users to do ipconfig /flushdns once in a while. Or even
schedule it as a task to run every our.
So far I have seen a few miracles after /flushdns :)
-Original Message-
From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:56 AM
To:
Another thought -
are your domain controllers accessible from those workstations?
Outlook 2000 an up can be used in two modes:
A. Exchange server can proxy (NSPI Proxy) the logon request to the domain controllers
or
B. Exchange server tells Outlook the name of domain controller, Outlook
I don't know if any products offhand (I've never had to do such a thing).
What kind of data? Methinks you would need some kind of front end
(ASP/HTML, VB, Access, etc) to view the data.
If your goal is to have SQL data visible to users via a PF, maybe create a
web page to view the data, then
Andrey,
Thanks again for the input. Unfortunately we are using Exchange 5.5 and not
Exchange 2000 so all lookups are done on the Exchange server and not with a
global catalogue.
Regards,
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 September 2002
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:30:16AM -0600, Morrison, Mike L. wrote:
Reverse the search order of Tom's suggestion (DNS, LMHOSTS, then WINS) and
you have my vote for the solution. Outlook uses DNS name resolution first
(which can be circumvented by using a HOSTS or LMHOSTS file), then goes to
Upgrade :)
-Original Message-
From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MAPI/Outlook detailed logon process
Andrey,
Thanks again for the input. Unfortunately we are using Exchange 5.5 and not
We will in about 6 months but that will be to Titanium, but I digress
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 September 2002 16:18
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MAPI/Outlook detailed logon process
Upgrade :)
-Original Message-
From:
After a company has moved and installed Exchange 2000, not
including any of
the migration, upgrade or installation problems. What are the
most common
problems you Exchange Admins have to deal with. With 5.5, IS
store failure
and having a good knowledge of disaster recovery are top on
I just completed a reinstallation of our server that hosts OWA for us. OWA
is working fine. We also use a application called OWA for PDA we purchased
from http://www.leederbyshire.com/OWA-PDA.asp. This was working fine before
the server reinstallation. Now I am getting this message:
Microsoft
You have to watch out every time you add a new Exchange server to your org - your
permissions will be reset so that Everyone could again create Top Level PFs.
-Original Message-
From: Busby, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:35 AM
To: Exchange
Is there a concensus on this?
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
I always thought that write-back cache should be always turned off,
whether it has
We went through this discussion with MS (via Premiere Support) and at
lease with a Dell SAN they told us to turn it on.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:05 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow
Never mind. A simple re-install of SP4 fixed it. Should have been the first
thing I tried, but I wasn't thinking.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Parkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Sort of OWA
A consensus? Probably no. But I'd tend to agree that if the controller has a
battery[1], it's OK to have it on.
[1] Those need to be changed regularly.. If this is news to you, you should
have the cache disabled.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Try www.slipstick.com.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Any products for syncronizing SQL server database
with Exchange p ublic folders?
Hi We have a SQL
You're mixing protocols with name resolution. Apples and oranges kina. With
the proper DNS configuration, your users should be able to connect just
fine.
-Original Message-
From: Irwan Hadi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Exchange
Are you referring to the array controller or the HGS80 controller? If
it is a raid controller then, no you don't have to CHANGE it regularly -
just charge it...when the time comes for a charge the system will inform
you. You then initiate the charging process, and while it's charging
the cache
I'm referring to controllers in general and not the specific one(s) used in
the original post.
-Original Message-
From: Todd Raymond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
Are you
I had couple of questions regarding this software:
1- Are you really happy with it? No major problems or anything?
2- Does it work with both Palm or Windows CE(PocketPC) PDAs or just one?
I tried emailing the address posted on the website, but it bounced back!
Thanks
--Alex
-Original
Isn't there a white paper from MS that does not recommend building RAID5 with drives
larger than 18GB
-Original Message-
From: Todd Raymond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
Are you referring
Are you sure about that or are you referring to MS Disk Manager and RAID5.
Many SANS have luns set up for RAID on 36 or even 72 gig or larger drives.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
If so, that would be hilarious, right up there with 640k should be
enough for anybody. I would hope it's just as much an urban legend.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:05 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing
Hi All,
Is there a way to have Outlook NOT rename the Exchange Server after it resolved the
server address?
Our situation:
Internally, the server is named MAIL
It can be reached via the web at TEST.company.com
When we configure Outlook, we enter TEST.company.com and it validates the user...
I believe he was referring to a SAN configuration - and yes, MS does not
recommend using large raid 5 sets on a SAN. Raid 10 is the preferred
method.
Exchange 2k writes in small 4k blocks. Using raid 10 with 15K drives
would really up the performance. It also matters how the data files are
Our users have complained about OWA (5.5)... Is OWA any better (more user friendly)
in Exchange 2000?
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external
Thats a big 10-4 Rubber Ducky.
-Original Message-
From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
Our users have complained about OWA (5.5)... Is
Yeah, they'll love the interface and switch to complaining about the
performance.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:38 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: Internal Exchange Name vs. external
yes
-Original Message-
From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
Our users have complained about OWA (5.5)... Is OWA any better
(more user
Which will be faster than not being able to connect at all!
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
Yeah, they'll love
OWA2000 looks like a striped down version of the Outlook client. We have
used it extensively in my office here, and every likes the new interface and
all the bells and whistles that go along with it. Of course, we added
Outlook Plus Pak for OWA2000 which is a great product from MessageOne (a
We have only been using it a short time and we only have a few PocketPC
users, but in general it works pretty well and people are happy with it. We
looked at some other applications but most of them involved more syncing,
which we can already do. The people that have the iPaqs are also heavy
Agreed, and SSL takes a big chunk of resources. Plan accordingly.
- Original Message -
From: Tom Meunier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
What is Outlook Plus Pak? And where can you find it?
I checked www.messageone.com, and did not see any reference to it...
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
Exchange 5.5 SP4, NT 4.0 SP6a.
OK. I have several Public Folders setup which people are having a problem
sending E-mail to.
Here is the error message I am receiving.
The message could not be delivered because you do not have create
permissions on this folder
or it is only available to folder
Set default to contributor (much like the method of subscribing a PF to this
list described in the FAQ).
-Original Message-
From: McCready, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Public Folder Chaos
Create a DNS entry for mail.company.com and have the users add company.com
to their DNS suffix search order if it isn't there already. If this box is
exposed to the internet then requiring VPN would be the wisest and safest
strategy though.
-Original Message-
From: David Wright
You have to set default as contributor...
-Original Message-
From: McCready, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Public Folder Chaos
Exchange 5.5 SP4, NT 4.0 SP6a.
OK. I have several Public Folders setup
All,
I'm having a weird problem when migrating mailboxes from one Exchange server
to another. I'm in mixed mode right now and it doesn't matter if I move a
mailbox between 5.5-E2K. Or E2K-E2K. But what seems to happen is once
the mailbox is moved admins who have been manually added to their
Manually added it how?
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Permission Problems For Migrated Mailboxes
All,
I'm having a weird problem when migrating mailboxes from
Permissions don't always move correctly in a mixed Exchange environment. If
you use a third party tool like NetIQ EM tool you will not have that
problem. Or that is what NetIQ says/recommends.
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September
Messageware, not MessageOne, makes Outlook Plus Pak.
MessageOne, not Messageware, keeps Chris Scharff off the streets of
Austin.
-Original Message-
From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:45 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Jeesh. After all that and I typed in the wrong name. It is
www.messageware.com. Sorry for the confusion.
Geoff...
-Original Message-
From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:45 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange
This is normal as we found out in our test lab.
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Permission Problems For Migrated Mailboxes
All,
I'm having a weird problem when
We found this happened when the permissions list included accounts that no
longer existed. Cleaning up the permissions list before the move fixed the
problem.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:57 PM
To: Exchange
Chris,
When you go into someone's Outlook client and right click on the folder and
select properties and go into the permissions tab and grant it that way.
That's what I mean by manually doing it. Sorry that was a bit misleading.
Thanks,
___
John Bowles
Exchange
And how are the other users accessing the mailbox (File | Open Other Users
folder) or Tols | Services | MSE | Advanced ADD)?
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Speaking of Austin streets...
1409 Lavaca, Friday at 11:30?
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
The ladder half
___
John Bowles
Exchange Administrator
Enterprise Support Engineering
Celera Genomics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Defualt set to contributor. Success. Thanks gentlemen.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Public Folder Chaos
Set default to contributor (much like the method
Extension or step?
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Permission Problems For Migrated Mailboxes
The ladder half
___
John Bowles
Is it only the calendar folder which has this issue?
-Original Message-
From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 2:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Permission Problems For Migrated Mailboxes
The ladder half
Somebody else said I should change Anonymous to Contributor to,
in order to accept messages from the Internet. But my test message
worked OK with anonymous still set to NONE. Is that how it should
work? Do I need to touch anonymous?
-Original Message-
From: McCready, Robert
So far yes...but I would think it would any folder if they had permissions
to it. Cause I don't see why it would just discriminate just to the
calendar.
___
John Bowles
Exchange Administrator
Enterprise Support Engineering
Celera Genomics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well isn't that Special Undocumented Feature a dandy! I'm going to have
to fix a lot of mailbox privileges during my migration. WONDERFUL!!!
Thanks for the help Mike!
___
John Bowles
Exchange Administrator
Enterprise Support Engineering
Celera Genomics
[EMAIL
it's a possibility.
===
Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com
Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071
===
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff
Sounds good. I'm getting heartburn just thinking about it.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 02:44 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet
Hello,
Scanmail does appear to be involved/effected. When the Scanmail services are stopped,
these problem messages can then be deleted in OUTLOOK. It STILL can not be opened and
read in OUTLOOK, but it can be deleted and moved between folders, which isn't possible
with the Services
No, you don't need to give permissions to Anonymous. I also had this
impression initially based on reading a Q article, but I think it had
anonymous confused with default (it was definitely inconsistent).
Peter
-Original Message-
From: McCready, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
I had long ago set BackgroundScanning to 1 and OpenRetryDelay to 5000 in the
registry of the exchange server per:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q264731;
Is there something else??
-Original Message-
From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
I had to call and ask for 2.17 even though we pay extra for support. I
guess I need to call again and try to get the update. They sent me new CD's
not too long ago but they had a real old version on them. Any idea what the
changes are in 2.18??
Tom
-Original Message-
From:
oops. prior commitment. tomorrow or next week (or again next week)?
===
Andy Webb[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.swinc.com
Simpler-Webb, Inc. Austin, TX512-322-0071
===
in e2k, you *do* have to set anonymous to contributor in order to get external
messages. Just another one of the Plethora of Sinister Surprises that abound in e2k.
-Original Message-
From: Reiss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:04 PM
Posted
I am serious. I remember reading a white paper about Hosted Exchange and they wrote
about that.
-Original Message-
From: Chinnery Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
Are you sure about that
I just bought a SAN with 20 72 gig disks in .
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
What are you on about mate?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Outlook uses NetBIOS name for the server. There is no other way.
-Original Message-
From: David Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Internal Exchange Name vs. external Internet Address/Name
Hi All,
Is there a
Is it RAID10?
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 6:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
I just bought a SAN with 20 72 gig disks in .
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
What are you on
Hi All
I hope that you wonderful people can help me.
Exchange 2000 SP2
Windows 2000 server SP1
Server went down in a big heap but the good thing is we have tape backup of the
information store.
The problem is as follows
Build a new box, same setup as the original, restoring from tape will not
We're you doing a BLB?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: restore problem
Hi All
I hope that you wonderful people can help me.
Exchange 2000 SP2
EMC clarion. Raid 5
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
What are you on about mate?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 3:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Slow performance
Purely from an Exchange I/O perspective, given the choice between 500MB
of RAID10 storage built out of 72GB drives (16 of them roughly) and
500MB of RAID10 storage built out of 18GB drives (64 of them roughly),
the 18GB drive setup will be measurably faster than the other.
A higher number of
How would one go about recovering from a IS that was bigger than 16GB,
crashing the Exchnage 5.5 server?
Does anything need to be done after compressing the IS with eseutil.exe?
consisitancy cheking?
- John Q
_
List posting FAQ:
Q185457
-Original Message-
From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: 55. IS = 16GB
How would one go about recovering from a IS that was bigger than 16GB,
crashing the Exchnage 5.5 server?
Does anything
They were
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2002 9:17 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: restore problem
We're you doing a BLB?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
There's your problem.Did you back up the information store also? If
so restore from that instead of the individual mailboxes
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Smith
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 5:43 PM
To: Exchange
Tried both
Constantly get permissions problems (access denied)
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 12 September 2002 12:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: restore problem
There's your problem.Did you back up the
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
