I found the resolution. The Exchange Event Service needs to run as the
Exchange service account that was used to install exchange...not
localsystem. Thanks for everyone's help.
_
List posting FAQ:
The account associated with Event Service is the same as the one used to
install Exchange,
however Event service won't still start.
-Original Message-
From: M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Event service
backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
The default is 20GB if I remember correctly. But can be changed via
registry key if I also remember correctly.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevinm [NY]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:40 AM
Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
The default is 20GB if I remember correctly. But can be changed via
registry key if I also remember correctly.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevinm [NY]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 11:40
: Exchange 2003 backups
Didn't we set a limit at 16 gigs in stead of going for the big limit???
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
[MVP]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003
PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
Exchange 2003 pst files larger than 2gig are possible I believe.
Ronald R. Mazzotta Jr.
Director of IT
Schonbraun Safris McCann Bekritsky Co. L.L.C.
101 Eisenhower pky
That surprises me because it's a new server and the public folder store is
on this new server and I haven't changed any permissions. I will
definitely check though. The question I guess would be, what account
would need permission to what? Exchsvc? Servername$? Exch Admins?
Didn't we set a limit at 16 gigs in stead of going for the big limit???
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
[MVP]
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 1:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 backups
32TB
: Sunday, 11 January 2004 2:54 a.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Event service will not start
That surprises me because it's a new server and the public folder store is
on this new server and I haven't changed any permissions. I will
definitely check though. The question I guess
Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
yes, this is my concern.
The main part of my question was what to backup and how often. ...and
retention setting for mailboxes and deleted items.
I need to figure out a robust policy which won't need tobe changed 6
months because of store bloating.
Import
I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.
Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004 8:47 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003
: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
I have a PST larger than 2GB FWIW. Seems to work fine.
Yes, I'm mostly just being difficult.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Friday, January 09, 2004
You should be able to backup a pst after (30) minutes of inactivity.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;222328
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange
Err, Outlook 2003 has the ability to handle PST files in excess of 2Gb.
Exchange itself doesn't know or care about PST files.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronald
Mazzotta
Sent: 09 January 2004 15:44
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
That's why E2003 handles them so well.
-Original Message-
From: Atkinson, Miles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 10:55 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
Err, Outlook 2003 has the ability to handle PST files in excess of 2Gb
You have valid Domain controller inplace at your test site or are you
testing that part also. MS has a rather lenghty indepth white paper that
spells out all of the steps and requirements.
From: Miller, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
That's a great question. I don't know the answer, though. It'd be nice to
hear what happens - please report back when you complete your testing!
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 1:21 PM
The error you are seeing usually indicates a permissions problem.
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 M
Sent: Friday, January 09,
I think you should plan on having a clone root domain controller. You could
use VMWare or Microsoft Virtual Server and run it on the same box, though.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From:
Do an SMTP protocol trace and see if that gives you any clues.
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 Robert
Sent: Thursday, January
PST = Bad.
themolk.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2003 backups
Hi,
I have just moved from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003.
It is a single server setup.
I
] On Behalf Of
Steve Molkentin
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
PST = Bad.
themolk.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:21 AM
To: Exchange
Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
yes, they do need to access these.
What do
in the FAQs, if not, certainly the archives.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thu 08/01/2004 23:35
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
How else
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
I'd recommend a public folder. That way, not only do you have access to
email from years ago, but all users (with correct permissions) have
access, instead of only the user who has it in a PST
] On Behalf Of Matthew Joyce
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
This seems to be a popular axiom, buy why are they considered bad ?
How else can I give users access to email from 2 years ago ?
yes, they do need to access these.
What do other
?
Certainly GuruEd (the MVP Slut) has raved against them previously. ;)
themolk.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 9:40 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
If my users needed to access mail
Of Ben Schorr
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
Really big hard drives is how we do it.
Our users keep the mail they need and are encouraged to
dispose of the mail they don't need. Occasionally they do.
Of course, we have
and wherever else they might be stashed makes an
investment in something like KVS seem like a bargain.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, January 08, 2004 5:35 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users forget them
(rendering them useless).
PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files feature), and so
can be forgotten or left behind, or worse, corrupted.
I think that we almost have an FAQ for why
and cost. If management thinks it is too expensive, get
their feedback and submit again.
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:21 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2003 backups
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
Takes about 6 seconds to strip a password from a PST file
which renders them laughably insecure rather than useless. ;)
-Original Message
your new big disks on your exchange box!!
themolk.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 12:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
My retention policies and mailbox size limits are based on
what
Of Steve Molkentin
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
PST's can have passwords put on them by users, and users forget them
(rendering them useless).
PST's do not synchronise (using WinXP's offline files feature), and so can
Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 backups
The correct term is vendor whore. I am not a slut.
Ed Waiting for the Content Filters to Kick In Crowley
MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the
world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From
I would first make sure that I am comfortable with backup/restore speeds
and base the DB size on that.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2k3 store configs
I am
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
I would first make sure that I am comfortable with backup/restore speeds
and base the DB size on that.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
That's what my 20GB was set for. I was just wondering as far as how you
split up your DBs if you do at all. Thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:39:04 -0500
At the current place, we have a separate DB for execs. It was not my
idea. I am not sure if I would do it this way - put all execs in one
basket... that's an easy way to piss off all
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
AM I missing something here. Are you saying you want to limit your DB's
to a certain size. Maybe I am crazy but you can only limit indvidual
mailboxes sizes via property settings or policies, right?
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange
]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:35:09 -0500
Not a hard limit, I just want to cut off creating users on that store
when I reach that limit to keep the DB size down
My general design plan (which may not be applicable here) is to worry
more about the storage group level. I'd design a SG with 4 private
information stores and create those databases at the outset. Then
through day to day operations, I distribute users over those storage
groups. I'd rather have 4
: Exchange 2k3 store configs
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
My general design plan (which may not be applicable here) is to worry
more about the storage group level. I'd design a SG with 4 private
information stores and create those databases at the outset. Then
through day to day operations, I
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 10:54 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Exchange 2k3 store configs
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
Agreed on that. When I give customers the overall choices, i.e. spread
users randomly across databases and reduce risks to common
Most of the large companies I've consulted with just keep the DB to a
certain size (20GB sounds good) and don't worry about who's on what DBs
it's too much a pain in the butt to be shuffling people around.
Although I have seen them try to keep important people on different
servers / DBs to keep
]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2k3 store configs
Ok the last place I was at they created multiple DB's based on sizes
ranging
from 100MB to 500MB for the mailbox limits which were set by policies.
If
your really worried about DB's getting
You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the
mailboxes or on the information store that contains those mailboxes.
There are KB articles about this.
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From:
Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions
You have to grant the admin account explicit permissions on the mailboxes or
on the information store that contains those
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions
Thanks I did see a KB article.
When I go to the user on the 2003 exchange server and click exchange
advanced
.
-Original Message-
From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions
hrm... if I remember right, the group 'domain admins' (and likely 'ent
admins') are explicitly denied
and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov, Andrey
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions
Can't someone just go and look this up on Google? You can
Thanks all got it ...
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions
Nonetheless, this is a terrible idea. An admin should grant himself
permissions
Well sometimes one needs to ExMerge a bunch of mailboxes...
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 mailbox permissions
Nonetheless, this is a terrible idea
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Crowley
[MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Mailbox Setup
Assuming by set up a mailbox you mean create one for a user account, the
person needs rights to modify the user account
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jones, Becky
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 5:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange Mailbox Setup
Yes, i mean to create one for a new user. Where would i assign the Exchange
View Only Admin
Make sure you have relaying turned off on your SMTP server.
_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Justin Lape
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 2:51
Read RFCs 821 and 822 and you can see how the address to where the mail is
sent (the envelope address) via SMTP doesn't have to match what is shown
in the message headers.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original
The messages could be sent TO: the bogus alias and have a BCC: (blind carbon
copy) to his valid address.
-Original Message-
From: Justin Lape [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 2:51 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange Users receiving messages not
Assuming by set up a mailbox you mean create one for a user account, the
person needs rights to modify the user account itself, and then Exchange
View Only Admin role for the administrative group.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked
You could delegate someone necessary rights on the OU where the user
accounts are going to be created.
Plus Exchange View Only Admin rights on the administrative group, as Ed
pointed out.
-Original Message-
From: becky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:38 AM
Moving mailboxes using the Active Directory, Exchange Tasks submenu. Move
mailbox command. From what I understand, you can not use the Exchange
Move Server tool if the servers are in the same site.
_
List posting FAQ:
Domain User rights are definitely not sufficient.
-Original Message-
From: becky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: exchange mailbox setup
What specific rights does a person need to have to set up a mailbox for
a
user?
] On Behalf Of Stephen Schwarz
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 9:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 To 2000 Move Mailbox Issue
Moving mailboxes using the Active Directory, Exchange Tasks submenu. Move
mailbox command. From what I understand, you can not use the Exchange Move
Check the account you're using and be sure that it has the correct Exchange
permissions.
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
Thanks for the reply!
I forget to add that the E55 and E2k servers are in the same Admin
Group/Site. I've try to replicate within the site, unsuccessfully. In
Exchange Admin, I open the properties of the Schedule+ Free/Busy public
folder, and under the Replica tab moved the E2k server to the
I'm assuming you've checked the services for E2k on this box correct?
_
John Bowles
Exchange Engineer
OIG/HHS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Beron
Sent: Monday, December 29,
You may also want to check that the IP addressing is setup correctly on the
LAN side of the router. If you had Public IP addresses before and now you
went to a firewall you will now have different IP addresses behind the
firewall (Prob a 192.168.0.X configuration)
-Original Message-
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derrick Stevenson
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 6:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000: 2K Mailboxes cannot see Schedule+ Free/Busy
System Folder.
Thanks for the reply!
I forget to add that the E55 and E2k
Are you moving it from the Excchange 5.5 admin or the ESM?
Doesn't work from 5.5 Admin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stephen Schwarz
Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2003 2:56 p.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 To 2000 Move
You must replicate the free-busy folder between the Exchange 5.5 and 2000
public folder servers.
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
I should think that if you can find a loaner server, that a swing server
method would be the easiest and least risky. Install the new server, move
all mailboxes and folders to the new server, remove the old one, reinstall
it, and move everything back. You don't need an extended outage to do
You should be OK, as long as your purchase records and paper license count
match up against your usage in the event of an audit.
I'll assume that you purchase your MS products from a reseller who
participates in one of the Volume programs - Select, OLP, Enterprise, etc. -
and that you got one
You either got the software under a microsoft select agreement or the Volume
Licensing Edition. Neither version requires a product activation.
Eric Fretz
L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800 Discovery Blvd.
Rockwall, TX 75032
tel: 972.772.7501
fax: 972.772.7510
-Original
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 / Outlook 2003 Prodcut Activiation
You either got the software under a microsoft select
agreement or the Volume Licensing Edition. Neither version
requires a product activation.
Eric Fretz
L-3 Communications
ComCept Division
2800
Are you only interested in keeping the public folders?
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange MVP
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Marty Mushrush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
We would like to keep as much as possible.
Thanks,
Marty :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 name change
Are you only interested
: RE: Exchange 2003 name change
We would like to keep as much as possible.
Thanks,
Marty :)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 name
I assume you have a Select Agreement with Microsoft and are installing it
from that media? In those cases, WPA is disabled and isn't required.
--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original
Yes it is possible. It's gonna take a long time, but hey, it is
possible.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;163627
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;244525
Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418
-Original
, December 17, 2003 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange DB defrag
Yes it is possible. It's gonna take a long time, but hey, it is
possible.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;163627
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;244525
Ben Winzenz
You can do that. Or you can use the command-line switch to direct the temp
file to a network drive.
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
I've done it on a much smaller DB but it took FOREVER. Save yourself a
lot of time and grief, get 120GB disk and install it in your server.
-Original Message-
From: Weatherly, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
Any ideas?
-Ryan
N. Ryan Fennema, MCSE
Network Administrator
X-Rite Incorporated - Grandville, MI
Phone: (616) 257-2165 Fax: (616) 257-2165
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.XRite.com
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Fennema
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 permissions error
Any ideas?
-Ryan
N. Ryan Fennema, MCSE
Network Administrator
X-Rite Incorporated - Grandville, MI
Phone: (616) 257-2165 Fax: (616) 257-2165
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.XRite.com
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Fennema
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Fennema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 permissions error
Any ideas?
-Ryan
N. Ryan Fennema, MCSE
Network Administrator
X-Rite
Did they recently change their passwords?
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Fennema [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 12:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2000 permissions error
We have several users that are all of a sudden receiving this error
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;262054
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Timothy Schilbach [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 2000 Service Account Permissions
Hi All,
I was wondering if
A) Exchange 2000 doesn't have a service account. This would explain why
you can't get your service account to access a mailbox. :)
B) If you want an account to have the ability to open another users'
mailbox, grant it Send As and Receive As rights.
Jason
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Thank you the Q article was exactly what I was looking for.
-Timothy
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
You can, but you might find your rules acting funny if you use any of the
O2k3 rules...
I use OL2k3 most always, but I was recently relegated to dial-up on a
business trip and had to use Citrix instead where we have OL2k2 installed...
-Original Message-
From: Raji Arulambalam
Yes they can.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raji Arulambalam
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 and Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000
Hi
Can a user use both Outlook 2000 and Outlook
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Raji Arulambalam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 and Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000
Hi
Can a user use both Outlook 2000 and Outlook 2003 to access their mailbox on
I have seen it screw up rules, and at times blow them completely out.
-Original Message-
From: Raji Arulambalam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange 5.5 and Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000
Hi
Can a user use both
I had a blow out last night
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000
I have seen it screw up rules
Madre Del Dios!!
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000
I had a blow out last night
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Aye carumba!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 12:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 and Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2000
Madre Del Dios!!
-Original Message-
From
Correct.
In 5.5 the NT account was an attribute of the Exchange mailbox.
In W2K AD/Ex2K (and beyond) the Exchange mailbox is an attribute of the
AD account. One account = one mailbox. But as said before permissions
can be granted as desired for particular mailboxes.
-Original Message-
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nikki Peterson
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Exchange client or mapi
Sue Mosher's SlipStick site has the XCNG Client:
http://www.slipstick.com/clients.htm#ex
Nikki
-Original Message
They work for me
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronald Mazzotta
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 1:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange client or mapi
Links are dead off the site. I also noted that windows messaging
Cheers, but unfortunately, this doesn't appear to exist.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
Andrey
Sent: 05 December 2003 03:27
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA default home page
You should be able to create
1 - 100 of 3008 matches
Mail list logo
