I'm just a non-developer whose only claim to fame is knowing the difference
between your and you're, but I believe that your registration syntax is
incorrect. The URL you are using refers to an item which already exists..
The calendar folder of the mailbox Berry (i.e. Your scope is incorrect). I
Unlikely your Exchange server is generating this error. More likely it's
whatever is answering at exchange.satake-usa.com.
From: Don Bruess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 07:43:15 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add yourself to all of the DLs and see how often you get mail.
From: Woods, Tony [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:39:43 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Monitoring DL Usage
Hello,
I would like to
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: BCC emails
Thanks Chris, can you tell me where can I get help/ procedure to do this. Or
is there a easy way of doing it.
Thanks Regards,
Irf.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
What is he moving from?
From: Todd Bentley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:25:44 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Delivery of all messages to admin (paranoia central)
I have a client whom we are going to
Does the user you are using to register this event sink have sufficient
permissions on the mailbox barry's calendar folder?
From: Berry Schreuder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 14:16:16 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, Annapolis Maryland
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2K Forest/Domain-prep on Win2003 Domain?
The hardware requirements for E2K3 vs E2K are generally equivalent, whether
It doesn't work if the exchange servers aren't in the same org.
From: Peter Orlowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:09:59 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: E2K migration issue
It will work. Its by
What would this spam filter filter on if it didn't download the message to
inspect it?
From: Jason Clishe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:58:12 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Looking for POP3 Spam
Use html, OE and a significant number of other clients (almost everyone
else) don't understand Outlook's RTF.
From: Finch Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:34:59 -0600
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
You do not own your ISP's network, your ISP does.
And that makes any arbitrary decision they choose to implement acceptable?
Please sign up here for the Patriot Service Plan comrade.
_
List posting FAQ:
Nice straw man argument. Now if you'd quit taking this thread off topic
I was answering the man's question.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:54 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Access to the Internet (was: ...
Check the box which says 'hide this entry from the global address list'.
From: Bridges, Samantha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:09:22 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hide a Name from Address Book -
Absolutely. Plain text = good.
From: Finch Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:00:16 -0600
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Exchange2K (or 2003) and Outlook 2K2
Oh I naturally thought OE would handle
::: pops 3rd beer of the hour :::
How many AD domains? Was domainprep run in all of them? Have the default
groups created by Exchange been moved? Have you used the security policy
checkign tool referenced in several of the aforementioned KB articles? If
so, what were the results?
From: Bridges,
2000
Where is that at? From AD Users and Computers or in ESM?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Hide a Name from Address Book - Exchange 2000
Check the box which says 'hide
21.6k... Darn youngin's back in my day...
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 16:19:57 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Outlook to Exchange over VPN issues
Absolutely. Even out of
A number of our customers use FrontBridge or MessageLabs and I've heard
generally positive things about both.
From: Michael Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 14:24:54 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:57:45 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New Entourage
Yes sir.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Just shut off the mail servers. You'll save even more money and have fewer
problems.
From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:49:52 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Trend? (Was
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, at 5:44pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inbound, Inbound Inbound INBOUND INBOUND CONNECTIONS!
Fscking Road Runner SSMs decided that inbound meant _all_.
One man's outbound is somebody else's inbound.
Right, which is why all firewalls come with default rules set to block
VPN works just great here.
From: Alex Alborzfard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 12:20:54 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Outlook to Exchange over VPN issues
We are in the process of rolling out VPN
The read receipts are generated when sending to users which are internal or
external?
From: Bendall, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 07:37:26 +0100
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: System Messages (Read)
-aid
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 11:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Way OT: Love that Windows File Protection - NOT!
Needless to say, Microsoft is not on my A-list this week.
You can always
Mr. Kong,
Please check the box in your application to include the reply so that others
might follow along. If the directories are excluded, I'd recommend using
that software maintenance Trend is so keen on everyone buying and dial them
up. File based scanners should effect Exchange if the working
someone needs a nap.
Steven
---
Steven Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator
The Key School, Annapolis Maryland
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Strange Exchange
del *.pst should clear up the issue.
-Original Message-
From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:03 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange Blackberry (RIM)
Subject: PST version
Had to rebuild... had office XP, now have office2k.
Needless to say, Microsoft is not on my A-list this week.
You can always switch to another OS. Of course if all OS vendors are doing
the same thing, then you can either accept it or go without automated
software updates. No one is forcing you to use software.
Hmm... Nope. Just drink the
Inbound, Inbound Inbound INBOUND INBOUND CONNECTIONS!
Fscking Road Runner SSMs decided that inbound meant _all_. It's really
unfortunate for the Austin RR group that I live within stal^H^H^H^Hwalking
distance.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to the seriousness of the RPC vulnerability, DHS and Microsoft
Write an event sink or server side script to do it.. Www.cdolive.com is a
good place to start
From: Brett Wesoloski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:46:35 -0500
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: pipe dream or
Mr. Kong,
I assume you've excluded the Exchange working directories from being scanned
by your file based AV product, is that correct?
From: HongKong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:06:47 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
That's why test labs rock... And in addition to just reading the E2K3 help,
I'd strongly recommend migration to it over E2K.
From: Matt Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:37:33 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of your head, does E2K3 need to be in
a Win2K3 AD or can it run in a Win2K AD?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 2:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Upgrade from Exchange 5.5 SP4 to Exch. 2000
That's why test
Autoarchive prior to running the migration wizard and/or don't use Outlook's
autoarchive feature.
From: Berry Schreuder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 04:18:43 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Migration Wizard
From: Atkinson, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:39:17 +0100
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: New Entourage
Configuring an Outlook for the Mac to
connect across subnets? I need that ongoing pain like
It's not necessarily about saving money though right? Scanning at the
gateway (in-house or outsourced) can be a valid additional level of
protection. A significant number of our customers use some form of gateway
scanner[1] in addition to their server and desktop based AV solutions.
[1]
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: New Entourage
It's you're not your. And don't blame me for your inability to RTFM.
This is indeed a peer support newsgroup; if you
If you're going to waste taxpayer money doing BLBs, might as well do it
right... Use CommVault.
From: Bridges, Samantha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:36:08 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Backup Software
This is more venting than any serious question:
What about MAPI? (Outlook for OfficeX-1)
MAPI? What about it. Outlook for the Mac is dead, and long overdue as well
IMO. Configuring an Outlook for the Mac to connect across subnets? I need
that ongoing pain like I need another hole in my head.
That's no rumor, I'm wearing a pair now with my leather shorts.
From: Tony Hlabse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:02:10 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RPC over HTTP Compatibility
I heard a rumor
set q=mx
intas.be
Server: m1w2ksit01.austin.messageone.com
Address: 10.0.0.246
Non-authoritative answer:
intas.bepreference = 200, mail exchanger = mail.euro.net
intas.bepreference = 10, mail exchanger = mail.intas.be
intas.bepreference = 100, mail exchanger =
? It's POP3.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Delivery of all messages to admin (paranoia central)
What is he moving from?
From: Todd Bentley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply
Again, as per the last message you posted and I responded to, this error is
not being generated by Exchange. It is being generated by whatever is
listening at your default gateway. Your mx record may be labeled
exchange.satake-usa.com, but whatever is listening isn't Exchange.
nslookup
Default
http://www.slipstick.com/exs/olroam.htm
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:58:19 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: E2K migration issue
Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone out there
.
It makes no sense. The whole idea is to make the products
across both
platforms the same or mostly the same. They didn't take Word
or Excel,
retool it, take out some important features and call it
something else, did
they? Keerist!!
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto
NT backup doesn't do BLBs. It wasn't engineered by Veritas to have that
level of uselessness. You'll need to waste good money to get that kind of
inefficiency.
From: Bridges, Samantha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:20:20 -0400
To:
Yep, exmapi can obtain that data. Somewhat more detailed discussions of
where the data is held is available in the archives.
From: Patrick Scribner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:31:57 -0600
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
Using NTBackup for BLBs sounds like an awesome idea, assuming one
doesn't want to do them.
-Original Message-
From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:20 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Windows 2000 Backup
Subject: RE: Windows 2000
IMNSHO upgrading to W2K at this point is a waste of time. If you're going to
upgrade, upgrade to E2K3. It greatly simplifies the upgrade process from
Exchange 5.5 and offers a number of significant enhancement which make it a
much more compelling upgrade story than E2K.
From: Dickenson, Steven
-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2K Forest/Domain-prep on Win2003 Domain?
IMNSHO upgrading to W2K at this point is a waste of time. If you're going to
upgrade, upgrade to E2K3. It greatly
Sure, you'll just need to write a categorizer event sink. Course it will
prevent you from receiving messages just like this one. Enjoy.
From: Exchange List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:34:41 +0500
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
What's a google?
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 13:25:43 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Looking for POP3 Spam solution
Search on Google. I have seen products like that before.
be something out
there that people use for reporting and could recommend
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 10:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Monitoring DL Usage
Add yourself to all of the DLs and see how
it, take out some important features and call it
something else, did
they? Keerist!!
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 4:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: New Entourage
Depends on how one defines Exchange
cooler things to play as well.
=)
-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: New Entourage
Do I
and not actual contacts or calendar entries?
-Mike Carlson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.uselessthoughts.com
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: New Entourage
Search support.microsoft.com for 'DumpsterAlwaysOn' if you have deleted
items retention enabled on the PF stores. Search for Disaster Recovery
Whitepaper' if you don't.
From: Vivek Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 17:04:55 -0700
not Outlook, but an incredible simulation!
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
The AD schema has nothing to do with it. You can install an E2K3 server into
a Windows 2000 domain and the E2K3 install will extend the schema
appropriately.
http://www.mail-resources.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=article;
sid=324mode=threadorder=0
From: Eric Holtzclaw [EMAIL
An in place upgrade is the least desirable of all potential upgrade
methodologies. I'd suggest a swing upgrade[1] unless there is no other
mechanism available. What's the burning desire to get the Exchange migration
completed so quickly on the heels of your as of yet unconfirmed successful
W2K
Test it in your lab, and make sure you document the process thoroughly so
that when you go to do this on your production sever you reduce the risk of
things becoming FUBAR.
On 08/04/03 08:53, Bridges, Samantha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It says that the task of the ADC is to replicate directory
NoOST=3
Nice disclaimer. NOT.
On 08/04/03 02:15, Niki Blowfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have one user who is experiencing numerous items she removed from her
deleted items folder reappearing some weeks later
PC is Win2k Pro running Office 2000, server is Exchange Server 5.5 SP4
Is
Haven't had time to look into the free/busy server settings, but the mail
functionality seems to work ok here.[1] Couple of people in my office have
been using the beta builds for a few months now.[2]
[1] Posting using it now...
[2] I think they've all moved on to playing with the Panther
Oh, and for those not running Panther, this little app is quite handy as
well... http://www.snerdware.com/addressx/
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 13:30:52 -0500
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject
this it looks like you have to have IMAP enabled for your
users then you can't use this. Granted this is from a cursory scan. Anyone
see anything different?
Nate Couch
EDS Messaging
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 1:31 PM
Depends on how one defines Exchange aware. If by Exchange aware, you mean
'it's Outlook' then no. If understanding free/busy and and automatic
configuration of address book and other account settings to support Exchange
qualifies, then maybe.
From: Erik Sojka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:
Uninstall groupshield and see if the problem goes away.
From: Pennell, Ronald B. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:44:59 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problems with forwarding attachments received from the
Best and PST don't really belong in the same conversation, unless the
question is What's the best way to make sure that compliance with discovery
requests will cost my company a fortune?
On 07/31/03 20:11, Eric Holtzclaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the best Archiving tool for Exchange
Why not just take a good backup (or 3) and upgrade in place?
On 07/31/03 06:47, David Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
Particularly to Ed. I was going to use the Ed Crowley method of migrating my
users Exchange server to 2000.
Basically, they are running NT4 and Exchange 5.5 sp3
When just the domain is being upgraded, Exchange 5.5 doesn't know anything
about W2K (it continues to work with the domain controllers at it had in the
past) and AD knows nothing about the Exchange org in your environment.
The ADC replicates Exchange topology and user data into AD and matches up
The fix is not to use POP3.
On 07/31/03 07:50, Missy Koslosky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is by design. I don't believe that there's a fix.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
Yes. How depends on the Exchange version, but I believe the process is
described in the help files for respective versions.
On 07/31/03 03:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and can we change the limit of the Mailbox size for any/all users? if so
how?
NDAs make that somewhat difficult.
On 07/30/03 10:03, Holstrom, Don [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing about it as well...
-Original Message-
From: Stephens, Tara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Outbound junk from a recipient other than ? Is your guest account enabled
by chance?
BTW, your Mx record is invalid, it needs to be an A record, rather than an
IP address.
On 07/30/03 20:55, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an SBS 2000 running Exchange SP3. In the past few days I have
Reminders only fire for messages in the default folders (Inbox, Calendar,
Tasks, etc.), are these flagged messages in those folders?
On 07/30/03 13:14, Mitchell Mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Outlook 98 Exchange 5.5 Windows 2000)
The flagging of a message has stopped working. You can flag a
Sounds like an interesting question answer in the lab. Let us know how that
turns out will ya?
On 07/29/03 08:11, Scott Force [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Windows NT4.0/6a domain running Exchange 5.5/4 single site. User is
primary windows NT account for his mailbox. User gets fired, I disable
lol... The person complaining the loudest in your organization about this is
surfing porn. Set up a network monitor and I'm sure you'll find that by
firing all the porn surfing malcontents, you'll have plenty of available for
legitimate business purposes.
On 07/29/03 00:34, Paul Thiemann [EMAIL
ROFLMAO
On 07/29/03 10:34, Aaron Brasslett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Really? Do you find them to be inaccurate?
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Reccomended Black Lists
If the Outlook is configured to prompt users for their credentials in
addition to the profile to be used, there shouldn't be an issue. Ditch the
generic logon and the superset of permissions.
On 07/28/03 22:23, Ron Jameson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a client who wants an open PC to be able
Perhaps my mail habits are extremely atypical, but using Outlook offline and
synchronizing has almost always been faster for me than connecting and using
a web interface... Especially with the enhanced synchronization features in
later versions of Outlook. If the need is truly grave than
Does the recipient have mail delivery set to a PST file?
On 07/25/03 14:39, Steve Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
We are having a strange problem with one user's (we'll call her User
A) calendar and specifically with meeting requests. Here is the
scenario:
1) User A sends
Personally, I evaluate the impact of the update to my environment. Some
critical updates never get applied. For the rest, I generally test them in
my lab and then apply them once I understand what the potential impact of
them may be to my environment. Occasionally, I may delay or escalate the
BST
On 07/24/03 10:44, Tim Gowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When one of our PAs puts an appointment into someone's diary, the
appointment moves forward by one hour. This has happened with two different
user's calendars. All the PCs and the Exchange (5.5 SP4) server are on GMT.
In one case
Might try rerunning domainprep as well in that domain... Don't think it
would hurt anything anyway.
On 07/24/03 14:41, Joe Pochedley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kind ladies and gentlemen, once again I come forth seeking your
assistance...
A number of months ago we began integrating the systems
Who is telling you that?
On 07/21/03 09:41, Randy Rohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With Exchange 2000 all Exchange services start up using the local system
account. Should this be changed to use a domain account instead? I was
told that this was a recomended Best Practice by Microsoft. Is
Local RPC is RPC on the local machine. Unless the local machine is an
Exchange server, there's probably no advantage to it being listed first.
On 07/21/03 16:05, Warren Cundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we should set TCP/IP first? What is Local RPC, is that some sort of
netbios/netbeui
No need to 'bump' someone with automatic replies to the internet enabled,
not when there are so many other interesting avenues one might explore.
On 07/21/03 17:16, Steve Molkentin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know we discussed this at length before - I posted to the NT/2000
list, and got this
Your downstream MTA is supposed to accept all mail from your MTA. That's why
the option says ..forward ALL mail... (emphasis added). To resolve this
issue, mail for domains which this external MTA is authoritative should be
sent through another connector.
On 07/18/03 09:56, Phillips, Alan [EMAIL
On 07/18/03 10:30, Phillips, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your downstream MTA is supposed to accept all mail from your
MTA. That's why
the option says ..forward ALL mail... (emphasis added). To
resolve this
issue, mail for domains which this external MTA is
authoritative should be
sent
Unclear. But a security audit from a trusted firm with an understanding that
any implementations of recommendations would be done by another firm might
serve to provide a more unbiased answer than what one might get from a
vendor directly.
On 07/18/03 12:26, Orin Rehorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implement something like http://www.attachstor.com/ perhaps...
-Original Message-
From: Wendel, Jesse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, July 17, 2003 4:25 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Back up Exchange WITHOUT backing up voice mail from Cisco
Unified Messaging
Subject:
If you're logged in as the user, why wouldn't you simply use Outlook to
export the user's mail? Course, why one would want a SSM using exmerge is
more boggling.
On 07/15/03 11:28, knighTslayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wonky mouse.
I'm sure you can use exmerege from the desktop logged in as
Sounds to unlikely be the actual cause and there is insufficient data to
troubleshoot further What does cannot send to that address mean? Does
it mean they get an NDR which says Can't send to that user because they
have a dot in their address?
On 07/15/03 10:31, Hutchins, Mike [EMAIL
You've been on the list for at least a year now haven't you? Isn't it time
to get around to reading the list FAQ?
On 07/15/03 08:41, Tony Nguyen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Exchange 5.5 sp3
NT sp6
I have been getting more and more of a of this in the queue with the
originator . Can someone
Can't you just remove the exchange attributes (and mailbox) from the from
one account and connect them to the other? Is exmerge really necessary? You
may also want to look at your AD replication topology and schedule if that
type of replication is taking such an extreme amount of time to
majordomo
-Original Message-
From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:34 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: What alternatives exist for mass e-mailings?
Subject: What alternatives exist for mass e-mailings?
We have over 7,000 e-mail addresses of
What does the NDR say?
-Original Message-
From: Rob Talkington III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:19 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Internet Email
Subject: Internet Email
This is the first time I've posted here and I couldn't find a search
function.
I
Oh... Both services in the same profile? Not a supported config in that
version. Upgrade to Outlook 2002, it supports that config, or install an
IMS which is much simpler.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Talkington III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:19 AM
Missed this yesterday, but don't see any reason you couldn't just create a
new Outlook profile on her machine to have resolved the issue. Outlook
locking up when accessing a PST file is decidedly not a mailbox issue.
On 07/10/03 11:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
She was freezing
It can be scripted. How depends on the Exchange version in use.
On 07/10/03 17:35, Bailey, Matthew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for a way to disable the POP protocol on a large number of
accounts. Is there a way to do this in bulk?
- Matt
101 - 200 of 2387 matches
Mail list logo
