This may be a real dumb question, but how do disable anonymous LDAP access to
the Exchange Server? I did not see that option anywhere in E2k.
Thanks,
Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
E2K isn't an LDAP server. AD on the other hand
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Geez...Had anonymous LDAP access turned on here as well...turned it off.
However, under the Authentication tab, do I want to uncheck the Basic
(Clear Text) and the Basic (Clear Text) using SSL authentication methods?
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL
No firewall? Connecting to Ldap://servername could be misleading from where
you are sitting.
-Original Message-
From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Baker, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Solicitation
Geez...Had anonymous LDAP
Maybe on that machine she told it to do the auto-fill thingy?
-- Drew
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free. --
Charles Evans Hughes (1862 -1948)
-Original Message-
I don't have E2K in front of me, but it isn't in the properties of the LDAP
protocol like in 5.5?
~
-K.Borndale
Network Administrator
Sybari Software
631.630.8569 -direct dial
631.439.0689 -fax
http://www.sybari.com
One man's ceiling is another man's
Is the Internet address that they are being translated to a NAT address ?
PROFITLAB
Network Engineer
PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
I think if you install all file converters for Word, it can also open PABs
in a table format.
S.
-Original Message-
From: Denis Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Personal Address Books
That did it!
I'll give that a try as well. Thanks again!
Denis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Soysal, Serdar
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Personal Address Books
I think if you install all file
After much complaining about PST usage on our network I have finally
been asked to give my recommendation on PST files. My recommendation of
not allowing them at all was shot down as not possible. I now turn to
you guys to find out what you do about PST usage.
I would like to limit the size of
Jennifer,
Yes, we have a firewall...sits between the boundary router/DMZ (where the
OWA server is) and the internal network (Exchange servers). And you are
correct...I am connecting to the server from behind the firewall. Went to
the OWA server and while it didn't specifically deny my attempt
ouch, ou, my a** is on fire from all the flames. I appreciate you
all pointing out the obvious.
But what I was looking for, YES I have read the archives, hence why I sent
the issue in the post, is what's the fix?
(i.e. I know the UDP packets are not being routed.)
Now I will do some more
Have the users keep them on their local hard drive.
Put together a written policy documenting what you propose and why. Be
detailed. Document everything. It will come back to you. It might take
six months, it might take six years, but it will come back to you.
Get legal to sign-off that the
I agree pretty much with this layout. I have beaten this horse and still it
rides. I have managed to at least get most of my people to create a pst for
basically each year. Some have gone to more frequent than this, quarterly for
a couple. The reason for this? Large PST's corrupt much
I have a problem that, hopefully, someone could help me out with. I have a
app that provides customers with an online store that includes a form that
they can fill out to order product. This form fires off 2 emails, one to our
internal people to let them know a new order as been placed and the
This battle happens in so many companies.
I would like to limit the size of the PST files that we use
Remember that PSTs have a max file size of 2 GB each. So if your
users are real packrats, you have the potential of having several
PSTs per user. Q266709 talks about the file size
Buy a cheap firewall. Or remove the everyone group from pre-windows 2000
compatibility group which will break your pre-w2k clients.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:04 AM
To: Baker, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Solicitation
I have a firewall. I have no pre windows 2000 anything. Everything is in
native mode. I am asking the question out of curiosity not to fix something.
Mike Carlson
http://www.domitianx.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Jennifer
Or remove your cheap firewall and break your users...
-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Solicitation
Buy a cheap firewall. Or remove the everyone group from pre-windows 2000
Well the second part was a wild guess, so good.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:13 AM
To: Baker, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Solicitation
I have a firewall. I have no pre windows 2000 anything. Everything is in
native
So... Since no one seems to want to share this super secret information on
turning off anonymous LDAP, am I to assume that it is something as simple
like disabling the guest account?
BTW: when I try ldap://server I get an error returned saying that An error
occurred while performing the search.
Dave,
Most people on this list are going to tell you that PST = BAD. Server space
is server space, whether it's on the Exchange server, or whether it's on a
member server, and that if you need to keep the messages, you should
increase the mailbox sizes and keep the important messages in the
Did you restart the IMC service?
and
Is the system attempting to send the mail multihomed or have more than one
ip address bound?
Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA
Director of Network Services
Privacy Officer
Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org)
817.412.5406
-Original Message-
Yes, I know it does not work on NATed addresses.
I was just hoping some one had a easy fix.
-John Q Jr.
- Original Message -
From: Morgan, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 over WAN
Are you in charge of your network config or do you have to go to another
department?
PROFITLAB
Network Engineer
PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:31 PM
To: Exchange
Somewhere in the back of my brain, I remember seeing a tool that you could
run on received spam that would simulate a NDR back to the sender,
pretending that the email address was invalid.
Does anyone know of such a tool and how effective it might or might not be?
Mitch Claborn - Ignite
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 10 January 2002 19:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Different kind of spam fighter
Somewhere in the back of my brain, I remember seeing a tool
that you could run on received spam that would simulate a NDR
back to the
net localgroup Pre-Windows 2000 Compatible Access everyone /delete
I can't remember whether you do it on each DC or just the PDC role master. Anyway.
That's how.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:04 PM
Can anyone recommend any tools that meeting the following requirements:
- Track/report Exchange obj./NT domain account associations
- Extract Exchange account data from ALL available fields (tried different
export tools, but certain fields are always excluded -- e.g. Supervisor
field)
-
I didn't think anonymous access was enabled in AD.
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage!
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Have you gone through the FAQ on why PST=BAD? If you have an Exchange
Server and you don't restrict people's mailboxes to a ridiculous size, there
is absolutely no reason for you to use PSTs. Offline users can work off of
their OSTs. Why is not possible to get rid of them? What is their
You can even write your own script to go through the logs and create
reports. However, if you already own BindView, I think it is capable of
running reports against the tracking logs.
S.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Peoples [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002
Ex 5.5 SP3 NT 4.0 SP6a
I'd been getting errors about the event service not starting with the
following errors:
Source: MSExchangeES
EventID: 5
An unexpected MAPI error occurred. Error returned was [0x80004005].
This is a public folder server. The event service stopped and could not
be
The IP address is the address of the internal server that is running the
app:
IP 192.206.170.200
SM 255.255.255.0
It IS a multihomed server
I did restart the IMC service (several times by now...)
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Steve Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday,
Sure, it can be. That's what that enable pre-win2k access is for, when you DCPROMO
a machine. You need that for support of NT4 RAS boxes, some VPN hardware (Cisco
3000-series for one), etc.
Anyway, the real answer is disable tcp 389 at the firewall. :)
-Original Message-
From:
Hmm... don't know of one that does all of that, but I happen to know a
crackerjack team of developers who could whip something up for you. What's
your budget?
--
Chris Scharff
The Mail Resource Center http://www.Mail-Resources.com
The Home Page for Mail Administrators.
Software pick of the
That's another guy! But I can get him do pretty much what ever I want! Why?
- Original Message -
From: Morgan, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:25 PM
Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 over WAN connection (new mail
Only in the fog
W.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
WOW, this list is not only informative but funny! Keep up the good work!
BTW
Bindview
-Original Message-
From: Derrick Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Seeking Exchange 5.5 Monitoring/Auditing Tools
Can anyone recommend any tools that meeting the following requirements:
-
I have a user who gets an error message when he tries to open
His outlook today and the public folders. It says that he does not
Have permissions. Also is seems as though so of his mail is not
In the personal folder. Can anyone help me with this..
Thanks
Libi
Hi,
I just subscribed to this list, and this is my first post, so if this
question has been made recently, please don't flame me.
I have a Small Business Server with Exchange2000 and Isa Server
installed. When installing ISA server, it automatically 'takes over'
ports 80 and 8080, and I can't
Is it possible to upgrade an existing Exchange 2000 (Win2k Server sp2,
exchange2k std sp2) to a domain controller for the Active Directory?
Its a lab environment, not production...
Thanks.
Greg
---
Greg Sachs
[EMAIL
Using exmerge with 5.5 allows someone to copy messages based only on
message attachment or subject line logic.
Can it be used to find and copy out messages based on logic filters for
message recipients and/or senders ? (i.e find all messages from/to
*theothercompany.com)
Is there another
Don't know if this is the right group for this but here goes...
I'm migrating accounts from unix sendmail to exchange and need to carry
the users' .forward file info with the mailbox. My script sets the
mailbox's 'Alt-Recipient' and 'forwardingAddress' property on the mailbox
to create the
Exmerge
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Message search utility
Using exmerge with 5.5 allows someone to copy messages based only on
message attachment or subject line logic.
Yep.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Sachs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: dcpromo on existing server
Is it possible to upgrade an existing Exchange 2000 (Win2k
Server sp2, exchange2k std sp2) to a domain
I'm not real familiar with ISA but there is probably a configuration setting
that enables Web Publishing. This might be turned off by default?
-Original Message-
From: Filipe Joel de Almeida [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Hi there,
I am having probs with the backup of my XCNG 5.5 Sp4 on NT4Sp6. I have a
priv.edb of approximately 23 GB size. Besides is only the OS and little more
(antivirus etc) on the machine. The machine itself is a P3 Xeon with 500 Mhz
and 512 MB RAM. It has an DLT 80 and uses backup software
I have a user who gets an error message when he tries to open
His outlook today and the public folders. It says that he does not
Have permissions. Also is seems as though so of his mail is not
In the personal folder. Can anyone help me with this..
Thanks
Libi
One of my colleagues recently reinstalled a 5.5 SP4 Exchange Server on NT4
SP5 (only Exchange was reinstalled) and have noticed that the Physical
Memory Utilization sits at around 99% (prior to the rebuild it was around
60%). The server has about 400 mailboxes on it and has 1Gb of physical
Just because it was a wild guess doesn't mean it wasn't right.
Use ldp.exe to connect and bind to the service. It's in the 2k resource
kit.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
You wouldn't, by any chance, be trying to brick backup would you?
-Original Message-
From: Steck, Steffen M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backup
Hi there,
I am having probs with the backup of my XCNG 5.5 Sp4 on
Are you doing mailbox level backups
PROFITLAB
Network Engineer
PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Steck, Steffen M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backup
Hi there,
I
Need more info.
Did his account change recently? Version of client? Version of server?
Events? Color of socks?
-- Drew
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
I got a simple rule about everybody. If you don't treat me right, shame on
you. -
BLB=BAD
The backup software has to log into each mailbox using MAPI and read through
all of the messages And it has to do it for each mailbox, every message.
No SIS and all the limitations of a MAPI interface. Hence the mantra.
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you
What kind of backup are you running?
-- Drew
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do well
matters very much. -- Jacqueline Kennedy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
The Exch Server Webserver are separate
The Webserver is a W2000 Server\IIS 5.0
IP settings are set to all unassigned
Thanks for the suggestions I will look into trying the scenario's you've
suggested.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
One of my colleagues recently reinstalled a 5.5 SP4 Exchange Server on NT4
SP5 (only Exchange was reinstalled) and have noticed that the PhysicalMemory
Utilization sits at around 99% (prior to the rebuild it was around 60%).
The server has about 400 mailboxes on it and has 1Gb of
Go here, call the number, get help, fell better.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=FH;EN-US;offer11AFR=0SD
=GNLN=EN-US
--
Dr Milton R Dogg
Of the Dogg Foundation
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Etts, Russell
Sent:
Is it possible to upgrade an existing Exchange 2000 (Win2k Server sp2,
exchange2k std sp2) to a domain controller for the Active Directory?
Its a lab environment, not production...
Thanks.
Greg
---
Greg Sachs
[EMAIL
Have you searched TechNet yet? It's amazing what something like isa sbs
owa without the quotes will find.
Tom.
-Original Message-
From: Filipe Joel de Almeida [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA access to Small
Under Tools - Services - The Exchange Server service is not setup properly
or has not been added.
-Original Message-
From: Libi Maniace [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Users Mailbox
I have a user who gets an error
Yes
Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Sachs
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 10:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: dcpromo on existing server
Is it possible to upgrade an existing
Currently we have 2 NT4 trusted Domains (ex: DomainA DomainB) with
Exchange Server 5.5(member server) having a DomainA
computer account and Exchange Service Account under DomainA.
Users from both Domains have mailboxes that are located on this central
Exchange Server.
The plan is to moved
We used to be allowed to wear loincloths and hunt wild game with
spears. Progress, such as organized farming, and large information
stores on Exchange servers, sometimes has an impact on the way
we do things. Better put hitching posts in front of the building
in case anybody wants to tie up
I have some user and password (new users I created ) who can't access
OWA2000 After entering the user and password they end up with Page cannot
befound
Other users (previous ones) can access OWA without problems. On the same
computer.
The users having problem with OWA can use OL 2000 to log
It sounds like you're doing a gasp brick backup? (each mailbox
individually?)
If so, you should check the archives (look down) for a lot of reasons why
you don't want to do it that way.
If not...are you using BackupExec's Exchange agent to perform on-line
backups?
Aloha,
-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr,
Read this
http://my.excite.com/myexcite/my.jsp
Then switch from backing up mailboxes to backing up the IS and DS
-Original Message-
From: Steck, Steffen M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Backup
Hi there,
I am
Find a way to upgrade the system somehow, and tell them that PSTs are unable to
work properly with the new system.
It's the truth, sort of...
-- Drew
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
As long as I have any choice in the matter, I will live
400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound right. Your primary problem
is hardware.
This is my minimum recommendation for your hardware requirements.
Dual Pentium III 550 +
Separate Raid Controller running in Raid 5 config. (2 partitions logical)
2 Gig physical memory.
3 Gig Page File on
Start with these links, read for a few days. Then realize that this
function is by design, why have the memory if you are not going to use
it? You do not buy a Dodge v10 Pickup and get angry if the engine uses
more then 3 cylinders do you?
Exchange for beginners
Thank you for making my hard drive labo(u)r so hard to open this friggin
email.
One of my colleagues recently reinstalled a 5.5 SP4 Exchange Server on NT4
SP5 (only Exchange was reinstalled) and have noticed that the Physical
Memory Utilization sits at around 99% (prior to the rebuild it
Do you restrict access with a security group, which the new users do not yet
belong to?
-Original Message-
From: Jean-Francois Bourdeau [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA 2000 access problem
I have some user and
lol. Nothing like over provisioning. ;)
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Ouch!! You just hurt my brain. How many users we talking here and will
everything stay nt4?
Try it in the lab and see what happens. You would also have to change
the server domain member ship as well correct?
Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Yea. He sure is pinching that server on RAM...
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
lol. Nothing like over provisioning. ;)
Chris
--
Chris
There are about 50 users on DomainA that will migrate and they will stay nt4
for near future.
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Moving Exchange Server 5.5 to new NT4 Domain
I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a
gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining?
Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
Mark,
When you add this IP address to the relay restriction tab, make sure to use
the subnet mask of 255.255.255.255.
Lynne
-Original Message-
From: Ludwig, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Relay
No you don't.
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a
gig Page file. How
Wanna bet?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
No you don't.
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Typically if you have a 4 gig priv.edb your Memory Utilization is going to
be around 800-900 Meg. Obviously this number would fluctuate based on the
numbers of users connected to the system. The amount of mail moving back
and forth through the database on 4000 users there is no way your running
Do you doubt the Word of the Dogg???
A spanking! A spanking!!!
-- Drew
Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now!
His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them
personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How
Maybe as a SMTP relay only. No Exchange Boxes.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Wanna bet?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081 recipients. Taskmgr
says I have 523,700 Total Physical memory, Explorer says my priv is
85,754,376kb
Looks like I do?
Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Excuse me for doubting but I can only base my assumptions on real world
experience. I know for a fact that a typical Exchange Box with Mailboxes
providing Mapi based services with a 4 gig priv will run around 800 meg ram
utilization. With two processors and a raid controller on this box your
Explorer talks to you?
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081 recipients. Taskmgr
says I have
At $vbc I had 1500 users running on a gig of RAM and our bottleneck at that
point certainly wasn't the need for more memory.
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales Engineer
MessageOne
If you can't measure, you can't manage!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Hmm. Do you have your mailboxes restricted to 1 Meg each.
-Original Message-
From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081
Thanks to all that replied. This looks like the fix as it is working now for
me when I test it. My customer I've been working with is gone until tomorrow
but I feel pretty confidant that it's fixed.
Thanks again,
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Steve Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
He tells me stories about Mr. Scharff, Yelling at the Exchange teams
is too much ask that If put the feature in, the it works?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Hmm. My experience has been that the mem utilization is typically 25-30% of
the priv size. And this does not account for the imc and other components
like av software. Your memory optimization skills must be much more
advanced than my own Care to share the secret?
Brian Murphy, MCSE,
my calc.exe program says average is 21mb. ymmv.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Thursday, January 10, 2002 03:43 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: High Physical Memory Utilization
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory
20 megs. IT REALLY needs some work. This was not my design, I was hired
to come in and clean up. This server is about the only thing functioning
with stability so it has been at the bottom of my fix list.
Milton R Dogg
Of The Dogg Foundation..
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good eye Mark.. I missed the incomplete subnet mask. :(
-Original Message-
From: Ludwig, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Relay Restrictions
Thanks to all that replied. This looks like the fix as it is
Environment: E5.5 Sp4, NT4 Sp6a, OL 2002
A user received an email addressed to someone else in our company. It went
directly to her and not the intended reciever. It actually had the
intended reciever in the To address but was delivered to someone else
entirely. However, there was a typo in
That doesn't necessarily indicate an Exchange problem, and if it did it
doesn't automatically follow that it's an issue with lack of physical
memory. I get that message from our current Exchange server on occasion
which has fewer than 50 users and 1GB of RAM.
Chris
--
Chris Scharff
Senior Sales
BCC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: how could this be?
Environment: E5.5 Sp4, NT4 Sp6a, OL 2002
A user received an email addressed to someone else in our
The box is a Dual Xeon 550 Compaq server with an External RAID array.
I get that too. Takes me a few minutes to load the admin mail box. Then
there are about 2000 new NDR'S and such in there every day when I load
it. That box hates me. But thanks to Mr. Lefkovics that is getting
better.
paste
I don't think I was yelling at that point That came later.
--
Chris Scharff
The Mail Resource Center http://www.Mail-Resources.com
The Home Page for Mail Administrators.
Software pick of the month (Extended Reminders):
http://www.slovaktech.com/extendedreminders.htm
Exchange FAQs:
101 - 200 of 256 matches
Mail list logo
