Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Kevinm v1.3. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 November 2003 17:00
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Phantom email address in Exchange Server
You in 5.5 ??
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Sorry, 5.5 Build 1960.5.
-Original Message-
From: Kevinm v1.3. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 28 November 2003 17:00
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Phantom email address in Exchange Server
You in 5.5 ??
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Hi,
Is there a way to configure Global Address list (Exchange 2000) to be
accessed offline?
Best Regards,
Michel Fayad.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
Dear List,
For the last few days I am receiving an error every minute,
source: MsExchangeIS
Category: Content Engine
Event ID: 12002
Description:
Error 800cce05-8000 occured while processing message from XYZ.
I have search this error on MS Web sites but was unable to find any
http://www.eventid.net/display.asp?eventid=12002source=
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Exchange List
Sent: 01 December 2003 12:15
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Error 12002
Dear List,
For the last few days I am receiving an error
Yes use Outlook in offline mode. Then download Address book for use when
offline.
From: Michel Fayad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Offline Global Address List
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:09:58 +0200
Hi,
Is
1960? Are you sure? That's 5.5 w/o any service pack.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Phantom email address in Exchange Server
Sorry, 5.5 Build 1960.5.
-Original
Living dangerously, eh?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Phantom email address in Exchange Server
1960? Are you sure? That's 5.5 w/o any service
2653.23 SP4.
Sorry, I pulled the Help..About on a client Administrator machine.
-Original Message-
From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 December 2003 13:33
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Phantom email address in Exchange Server
Living dangerously, eh?
In the past, when confronted with this issue, I've done a full Directory
Export (inc hidden mailboxes) and then done a search of the resulting
CSV file to find which account has the SMTP address assigned.
There is probably a slicker way of finding which account has the SMTP
address, but the way
Apply SP4 to your client.
As for your orphan, do a directory export (all objects - including the
secondary proxy addresses) to find it.
If you arent sure how to export the secondary proxy addresses, do a search
in Technet on how to do that.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Dixon
Are u sure? Trend says 690 is the latest and a search at Trend's site shows no hits
for yaha.
Paul Chinnery
Network Administrator
Mem Med Ctr
-Original Message-
From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 12:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I just looked and there is 691 out there but is in test so it must be
manually downloaded. I also found the virus yaya in their encyclopedia.
http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=WORM_YAHA.AF
-Original Message-
From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is the size of the priv.edb and pub.edb the only difference between exchange
standard and exchange enterprise?
Eric Fretz
L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel: 972.772.7501
fax: 972.772.7510
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP]
No there are a few more differences..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Fretz
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Private Store size problems.
Is the size of the priv.edb and pub.edb the only
Enterprise comes with the X.400 connector has standard. At least that is the
way it was for 5.5
From: Eric Fretz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Private Store size problems.
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:09:30
5.5 Enterprise also includes additional connectors.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Private Store size problems.
Is the size of the priv.edb and pub.edb the only difference
And that whole front end back in thing, multi store thing.. Something
like that..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Private Store size problems.
5.5
Thanks, Pete. I forgot their general search eng won't turn up viruses. One has to go
to the virus enc to search. I'm surprised that 691 is still in the CPR state. Trend
usually has them out of CPR within 24 hours.
Paul Chinnery
Network Administrator
Mem Med Ctr
-Original Message-
The address is attached to a public folder. The public folder reports The
object in the information store could not be found ID no. c1040af2.
I think this means that I'm going to have to recreate the public folders by
copying all the mail and Calendar items out to a PST file and then delete
the
Hi there
There are some drawbacks to clusters:
1) They are more difficult to administer
2) Memory fragmentation
3) Extra steps when setting up a front end/ back end configuration
4) Cannot support SRS
5) MS now only recommends Active/ Passive (Some PSS techs have gone as
far as saying Active/
Your welcome. Waiting on it myself.
-Original Message-
From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Virus received in Details.zip
Thanks, Pete. I forgot their general search eng won't turn up viruses.
I put 691 on my Exchange server on Sat. So far so good, but I haven't seen
any of these new virus's yet.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pfefferkorn, Pete
(pfeffepe)
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
So what don't you understand?
The To: address was spoofed and you were added to the Bcc: section, so
your address won't show up in the headers. If you take a look at the NDRs
in your Admin mailbox, you will see an NDR for the address indicated below.
It's spam, pure and simple...delete it or
I have in fact I had to tell trend about it...
My first cutting edge I got hammered last week monday been cleaning
since
WORM_AGOBOT.A3
it's a bite...
there was no def on it from anyone and I have yet to figure how it got
inlikely a rogue laptop plugged in..
it's bite's Im crabby
Maybe it is an orphaned public folder? Can you find any public folder
with that name and try to home it (make a replica of it on this server)?
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Mike Dixon
Is there a way to run Outlook 97 on a Windows 2000 box in an NT4 domain
without giving the user Power user or Administrator privileges?
Thanks
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
Why, oh why would you run Outlook 97? Outlook 98 was a free upgrade for
anyone running Outlook 97
Outlook 98 should run just fine with User privileges.
Joe Pochedley
Weiler's Law - Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do
it himself.
-Original Message-
From:
Can outside applications run Outlook 98?
-Original Message-
From: Joe Pochedley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 W/O Admin or Pwr Usr
Why, oh why would you run Outlook 97? Outlook 98 was a free upgrade
This sounds like a setup issue.
I generally add the User to Administrators group during setup and testing.
To make sure everything is set properly in the user's registry.
Then change the user to the group you want and re-check. You may need to
adjust permissions some, depending on which group
I have done that and it doesn't work. I found a reg hack for it so I guess
I can try that.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 97 W/O Admin or Pwr Usr
This sounds like a
Does the Mailbox Move function of Exchange 5.5 perserve single instance
storage?
K
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Adams, Kevin C. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 4:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: [EX55] Mailbox Move
Does the Mailbox Move function of Exchange 5.5 perserve single instance
storage?
K
For those of you with Veritas (Or Seagate) Backup Exec, I have a problem
with restoring individual user mailboxes. Everytime I try to restore an
individuals mailbox, the job copies 9088 bytes and then hangs. It never
fails or gives an error message.
My mail server is Exchange 5.5 standard
Hello.
Is it possible to send an appointment to an Outlook user in an external Exchange
organization? If I send a meeting request to an external Exchange organization, how
does the recipient respond? Will they have the option to accept/tentative/deny? Will
the appointment act differently
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/40021/40021.html
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bridges, Samantha
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Sending meeting requests to external Exchange/Outlook
You're not going to like this answer, but brick backup is a great big kludgy
crutch for administrators who insist on managing their Exchange environment
like they would a Microsoft Mail environment. Quit depending on it.
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_appxb.htm
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet
Switch to the Exchange 5.0 client on OS/2 Warp.
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 Gonzalez, Alex
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003
2 only applies to active-active clusters.
6 is not a drawback to clusters, just not a reason for them.
But your other points are well taken.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Thanks Buddy.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Error 12002
http://www.eventid.net/display.asp?eventid=12002source=
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
40 matches
Mail list logo
