We have exch5.5 running with exch SP4 on WINNT4.0 Sp6a. I have had
anumber of times when from outlook (email seems working fine), however,
when you look at the services on the server, Information store service
seems stopped. Task Manager shows that STORE.EXE is running. When you
try to restart
SimpleSynch
www.cps-systems.com
Jerry Welch is our key contact.
-Original Message-
From: ERB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 July 2002 22:10
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OrganizationsGAL
Hi,
We have 2 different diferent Exchange2000 organizations ( 2 AD forests ) in
two
Why would you want to do that ... Unless you want to spy on them ???
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 July 2002 06:03
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Copy of sent messages of a mailbox to other
That function is not standard in any
thanks, that would be great. I have over 300 sites to create, and I would
like to script it all for the implementation group. I have been looking
at ldifde to import them, but I cant get the correct syntax.
_
List posting FAQ:
I know this isn't the answer to the exact question, but why would you want to do it
from the registry rather than just finding it in the Admin program, and selecting Edit
Delete? Or just whacking on the delete key, for that matter...
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua
Disable antivirus services and see if you get the same behavior.
-Original Message-
From: Kully [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exch 5.5 IS intermittently showing as stopped
We have exch5.5 running with exch SP4 on
I cant answer your question, but just to clarify, is the server failing
over, or just coming back up on the same node?
-Original Message-
From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:12 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Store.exe is crashing on my system
I did and I am still a smart-a$$.
-Original Message-
From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exch 5.5 IS intermittently showing as stopped
Disable antivirus services and see if you get the same
It fails than comes back on the same node.
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE:
Running E2000 SP2, W2000 SP2, Mixed mode exchange. I have my e2000 setup
with FE/BE with a virtual server setup for
network load balancing between the 2 FE's. I want to test my new smtp
address to see if I can get mail Inbound from the outside
world. But, not ready to remove the current
The server is hung and it is preventing me from even opening the Admin
program.
And, before you say fix the hung server, it is on the west coast and I am
trying to correct the issue as we speak.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22,
I have Read FAQ 3.14 and I am wandering if there is any way to publish a
resource Calendar to the Public Folders?
TIA,
Joshua
Joshua Morgan
PROFITLAB
Senior Network Engineer
PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
Fax: (413) 581-4936
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.profit-lab.com
http://ncontrol.info
Is there a way to create an account in exchange 5.5 that would allow
outside email to be received but would not allow mail to be sent either
internally or externally ?
_
List posting FAQ:
For info:
The SP3 active directory connector now works with the .net adminpak.msi
allowing MMC admin of exchange from an XP client. Woohoo :)
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service.
There's nothing to stop you from doing it, but since PFs don't have
free/busy information associated with them, most people don't.
-Original Message-
From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 8:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: `Resources and
I know the url states fixes in Microsoft Exchange Server SP3
But the title of the page is:
List of Fixes in Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server SP2
and the Q articles mentioned in it include fixes found in SP2.
Terry L. Beavers
Technology Assessment Application
Information Technologies
University
The size of the pipe has nothing to do with the available bandwidth on same.
You've demonstrated that file uploading works from the internet, so sounds
like the user was killing the process too soon based on the information
provided.
-Original Message-
From: Ellis Hillinger
Thanks for posting the Q articles cause the link is broken on MS website.
Has anyone depoly SP3 to an cluster environment, if so did it break anything?
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
Message journaling.
-Original Message-
From: Adson Silva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 9:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Copy of sent messages of a mailbox to other
I'd like to know if possible, how to setup server to
leave all messages sent from
And what if I do want to spy on them? Since e-mail is a corporate asset,
there's nothing preventing a company from monitoring e-mail communications
in many countries. There are also legal requirements which force some
companies to keep all correspondence in certain circumstances.
-Original
Yeah. Heck, add ten.
-Original Message-
From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:44 AM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: Adding another smtp address to receipient policy
Subject: Adding another smtp address to receipient
Well I do not mind creating it as a mailbox as long as I can Push the
Calendar info to a Public Folder
Joshua Morgan
PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.profit-lab.com
http://ncontrol.info
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Would you guys and gals take this to mean my Exchange Server is treating
this external address as internal?
I have added it to the IMC Connections Specify by Email Domain
I usually add domains here I cannot resolve for delivery by using my ISP's
DNS servers. It doesnt happen often but I just
Exchange 5.0 has two options when it comes to relaying. Allow it, or don't.
If you need more granular control, you'll need to upgrade.
-Original Message-
From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 7:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: exchange 5
yes
-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Scanmail
Hi,
does scanmail works on SBS?
I believe SBS is built on NT4.0 and Exch5.5?
Kim
It's reporting what the receiving server told it. You can test this using
the methods described in RFC821 referenced last week as an essential tool in
a mail admin's toolbox.
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:55 AM
To: Exchange
Go into the properties of the mailbox, LIMITS tab. Put a check in the
box that says prohibit send and put it at 2kb. Send the user a 3kb
welcome message.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, July 22, 2002 9:39 AM
Posted To:
OK, how does the system know which receipient policy to be used / Or does it
check all
the policies for the new address?
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Adding another smtp
It takes the highest-priority one which matches the LDAP query that is
used to generate the recipient policy. I would tell you to hit your F1
key, but then my secret would be out. :)
-Original Message-
From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, July 22,
We recently added a size limit to the IMS connector. The problem we are
having is that if someone sends out an email that exceeds that limit it
seems to get stuck in the MTA. It keeps appearing and disappearing in our
X400 connector to our Houston Office (which also has an IMS connector). I
Who knows, maybe it's a work in progress. I spot-checked it, and saw
this issue was first fixed in E2k SP3 and that was good enough for me.
But I don't suffer any of the issues that SP3 addresses anyway.
-Original Message-
From: Beavers, Terry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At:
OK, I hit the F1 key, now my finger is broke and I don't know why!!
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Adding another smtp address to receipient policy
It takes the
Do you have more than 1 IMS?
-Original Message-
From: Kuske, Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Internet Mail Size Limit and Routing
We recently added a size limit to the IMS connector. The problem we are
It works fine in a cluster environment
Yours,
Julian Stone
Exchange 2000 Consultant and Webmaster
This message sent from Exchange 2000 SP3 build 6249.4
Netstore - Europe's Leading Application Service Provider
Tel: +44 (0) 1344 444349
Mobile: +44 (0) 7710 122 312
Fax: +44 (0) 207 681 1238
Not locally, there are other IMS connectors throughout the ORG which are
reached via our X400 connector to Houston.
Thanks,
Barry
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Internet Mail
Been there. The message can't get delivered through your IMS, so the
MTA tries the other IMS that's across the X400 connector to Houston. If
the IMS at Houston also has a size limit, the same process happens over
there, and the message tries your IMS again. This repeats 512 times
before the
Thanks Chris. I guess what threw me was that when this happens any other
time the message is from the recipient SMTP server and I dont see it
mentioned in this NDR anywhere. Just my server's info . . .
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions
Just wondering if anyone has been brave enough to install SP3 yet? If so
did it cause any problems for you or is it working just fine?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:
Julian,
Did you do those pre/post changes as MS indicates in the release notes?
Eric Sabo
NT Administrator
Computing Services Center
California University of Pennsylvania
-Original Message-
From: Julian Stone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:23 AM
To:
I'm always brave on my test servers. Seems ok there at the moment.
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 22 July 2002 16:24
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation: Anyone brave enough to install SP3?
Subject: Anyone brave enough
The message is never received by the recipient's server, but instead
rejected during the transmission of the message.
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Does this mean what I think it
Thanks for the help.
Have ended up just turning off routing/ relaying as it wasn't needed.
Couldn't do anything else to prevent the out queue being clogged apart
from install a firewall and have mail routed thru the ISP smtp mail
server which is up-to-date.
-Original Message-
From:
Here, too. *yawn*
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 8:26 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Anyone brave enough to install SP3?
I'm always brave on my test servers. Seems ok there at the
If you do have applications that access with CDO you may see some
issues.
This will be available in Q324037:
Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server Service Pack 3 Security Modification and
CDOEX/CDOSYS
Summary
A security modification in MicrosoftR Exchange Server 2000 Service Pack
3 (SP3) removes
Does this happen for every connector in the ORG that has a size limit?
Would every IMS in the ORG have to be set to site instead of organization?
Is this an undocumented feature or a bug?
Thanks,
Barry
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday,
Yes, I believe that all IMSs would need to be looked at. This article
should help explain the concept:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q160534
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Kuske, Barry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 22 July 2002 17:07
Posted To: Swynk
One more thought then . . .
What would you say it means when I get that message (550) but if I connect
to that server, port 25 via telnet and submit a RCPT
TO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and I get back a 250 OK? That means the user
does exist doesnt it??
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff
No. It just means the server has accepted the rcpt address. Why it doesn't
reject the session at that point I don't know. It's probably in the RFC's.
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re:
Nope. Not necessarily.
The answer you see, is in the RFC.
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:19 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Does this mean what I think it means
One more thought then . . .
What would you say it
If you're getting that far with smtp.foodbroker.co.uk you're doing better
than me[1]. It doesn't necessarily mean that the user exists, but does mean
that the server didn't reject the message during the SMTP conversation as
one would expect during based on the error message reported:
Why it doesn't is based on the implementation of the RFC. A server is not
required to do a directory lookup at that point to verify the user exists,
although it can. Exchange for example does not, while other mail servers
may.
-Original Message-
From: Lentz, Wayne [mailto:[EMAIL
I know. I know! ;) I have given it the once over but it is not fully
digested yet!!
- Original Message -
From: Andy David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: Does this mean what I think it means
Nope. Not
Well, that portion is not as readily apparent as others. The nuances of
SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, MUST, MUST NOT and MAY are something one understands
better over time. And there are some portions of various RFCs which are
either unimplemented or are intentionally broken because time has proven
them to
Actually my session ends after a timeout after I send the MAIL
FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] command.
BUT I get this exact same behavior for another address (SUPERVALU.COM) that
I am getting 550's from. Only these 550's are being generated by my
Interscan SMTP box and not the Exchange Server's IMC as
Does Exchange 2000 have better client connectivity than Exchange 5.5 or is
it the same?
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To
220
***22*2002***0*0
0
Above is the SMTP 'banner' I get when I connect to their mail server... It's
indicative of a Pix with the mail fixup protocol enabled. Is all of your
SMTP traffic set to forward to the interscan
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:39 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Client Connectivity
Does Exchange 2000 have better client connectivity than Exchange 5.5 or is
it the same?
Truth be told, I re-read them more times than I like to admit - it does take
a few readings before you get a feel on where within the RFC itself you can
find the info you are seeking as well have it make sense in your own mind.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi, Josh:
If you're trying to remove a server from the dropdown list in Exchange 5.5 Admin,
close the 5.5 Admin program and run regedt32 to the following key:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER_on Local
Machine\Software\Microsoft\Exchange\MSExchangeAdmin\Desktop\Servers
Delete the server you no longer want
Hi All:
I am running W2K service pack 2 with Exchange 2000 with
Sp2. We have an internal exchange server. I would like
to give my users access to my exchange server so they can
access the email through web browser or using outlook
client. I was not able to configure so far. Please help.
Hi all...
I'm running Exchange 5.5 sp4 on a winNT box. I have a satellite office
coming through an ssh tunnel to get to the server as imap clients. When I
configure MX so that my imap clients can send mail outside our domain, I'm
finding myself being used as a spam relay. When I change the
Environment:
Exch 5.5 SP4 on NT4 SP6a
Exch2K SP2 on W2K SP2
I have a user who gets an Unable to Delete Item error whenever she tries to
delete mail from her mailbox via OWA 5.5. I have no trouble deleting mail
from her mailbox, and nor does the E2K service account. The E5.5 service
account,
for the foodbrokers.co.uk address it is not going through the interscan smtp
box as I added that custom email domain setting on the connections tab of my
imc. Normally yes, though.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
OWA is installed by default and POP3/Authenticated SMTP are also enabled by
default, how and where that needs to be mapped to any firewall or router
depends entirely on your configuration.
-Original Message-
From: Nadeem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:29 AM
http://www.mail-resources.com/modules.php?op=modloadname=Newsfile=article;
sid=156
-Original Message-
From: rebecca [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Spam relay: configured correctly but still getting nailed.
Hi
And where, on that connections tab do you have the mail being sent?
-Original Message-
From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Does this mean what I think it means
for the foodbrokers.co.uk address it is
Worked flawlessly, thanks
-Original Message-
From: Ciocon, Juancho {Info~Nutley} [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Removing a server from Admin program
Hi, Josh:
If you're trying to remove a server from the dropdown
Why?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client Connectivity
Yes.
-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002
Ellis, We have the same issue here. Almost exact setup as you. Whenever the file is
over 1.5mb, the browser just hangs. If you kill the process and try again, it usually
works. I tried to send a 4mb file from my DSL connection at home and first time it
hung for 15 minutes before I gave up.
From a design perspective on locating servers across WAN links or locating
them locally. Does the clients have better connectivity to an Exchange 2000
server as opposed to a 5.5 server? My assumption was that they are the same
(5.5 vs. 2000) from a bandwidth utilization perspective.
Pickled herring.
-Original Message-
From: Lentz, Wayne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client Connectivity
Why?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July
MAPI clients for clarification
-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client Connectivity
From a design perspective on locating servers across WAN links or locating
them locally.
to 62.190.181.66 (smtp.foodbrokers.co.uk)
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Does this mean what I think it means
And where, on that connections tab do you have the mail
It depends. Knowing what I do about the DOL, probably.
-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:11 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client Connectivity
From a design perspective on locating servers across WAN
All I can suggest is turning up the logging, based on the error message I
believe you'll find their mail server is the one doing the rejecting though.
If you know these blokes, you might want to let them know they're missing a
PTR for that a record as well.
-Original Message-
From:
LMAO -- Chris you sound just like my Father. You can ask him 2 questions
and get 2 answers:
Yes if it pertains to both questions, or
Yes and No
And usually no explanation regarding either. Thanks for a good laugh of the
day.
Geoff...
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff
Well, there were actually 3 questions there (possibly 4 depending on how one
reads it) and it left out a number of critical pieces of information which
would allow one (with potentially the help of several whiteboards) to answer
the question in a meaningful way. Based on the question and
NDA:-X
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 8:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Titanium (aka: Exchange 2003)?
Anything new that is worth upgrading for?
personalmail
Is there any point to discussing an upgrade already? SP3 just came out and Titanium
will be a while, sit back relax.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Titanium (aka: Exchange
I dont even have a DVD player.
-Original Message-
From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 3:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Titanium (aka: Exchange 2003)?
Is there any point to discussing an upgrade already? SP3 just came out and
Titanium
Hi All,
Is there any way to bulk import a list of email addressed to be filtered
(blocked) to the E2K Message Delivery Filter list?
Best Regards,
JMU
Jim Underwood
_
List posting FAQ:
Came into this discussion late... Has MS announced anything about the next
version of exchange?
Anybody have a link?
--
Dustin
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:
QA
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange
or for great add-ons to the current version:
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/partners
Mark
Plus Pack for OWA
SecureLogoff for OWA
http://www.messageware.net
-Original Message-
From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
No, but I hear that the upcoming version of Outlook has a sort by
thread feature. Until then, you can find rumours of it including a
waffle iron, comments about it being stronger yet lighter than the
current metal that William Lefkovics is using, and find out how far
behind in consumer gadgetry
Are you saying I should reformat?
-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 3:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Titanium (aka: Exchange 2003)?
No, but I hear that the upcoming version of Outlook has a sort by
thread feature.
I may take you up on that pickled herring theory. However, the price will
have to be negotiated quite a bit.
Geoff...
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Client Connectivity
I recently wrote a perl program that takes an addusers export file and
populates it with passwords consisting of random characters. If you haven't
already created the user accounts, you can use my code along with
addusers.exe (NT4 resource kit, but works with AD too).
-Original Message-
Can someone give me some advice on how to set up Outlook 2000 to purge
deleted items immediately upon exit...
1) Without using Exchange Mailbox Manager
2) Without going to each client workstation and manually setting the
Empty deleted items folder upon exit checkbox.
3) Without using exchprod.prf
I'll skip the obvious question.
For Microsoft Windows NT:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Windows
Messaging Subsystem\Profiles\ProfileName\0a0d0200c046
Value Name: 000b0115
For Microsoft Windows 95 or Microsoft Windows 98:
Aye. Not to mention that the user can simply say No when prompted to do
so.
Wonder if Slipstick has something...
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 3:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Configuring for automatic purge
I just set mailbox limits myself...
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 3:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Configuring for automatic purge of deleted items in Outlook
Aye. Not to mention that the user can simply
Now you're thinking out of the box again!
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 4:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Configuring for automatic purge of deleted items in Outlook
I just set mailbox limits myself...
Thanks for the reply, I am off to the testing lab to recreate this process.
-TOny
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 8:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating exch 5.5 mailboxes to Exchange 2000
Yes, if you bring
And I hear the Texas version will be much bigger.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom Meunier
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Titanium (aka: Exchange 2003)?
No, but I hear that the upcoming
A quick question. When browsing through public folders with an Outlook
client that is ver 2000 or higher (XP), is the Outlook client getting the
hierarchy information from AD? Reason I ask is that when browsing PF we
get that box all the time about connecting to the server. I am thinking
that
The most common reasons for this is that you have a ton of public
folders. Other people will experience this problem if they have a ton
of stuff in their inbox. The funny thing that sometimes helps it is to
go run all the updates for Office XP, specifically that alternative user
input patch
The reason that I am concerned is that we didn't have this problem until
migrating the public folders to Exchange 2000. H.
The most common reasons for this is that you have a ton of public
folders. Other people will experience this problem if they have a ton
of stuff in their inbox.
Are the PFs homed on a different server from the one that the users'
mailboxes are on? That would do it.
-Original Message-
From: Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: Monday, July 22, 2002 6:09 PM
Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
Conversation: E2k and Public Folders
Subject: RE:
Hi Everyone,
The users at one of our sites are having trouble syncing the OAB.
The error in their sync logs is as follows: -
8:48:20 Microsoft Exchange offline address book
8:48:20 0X8004010F
When I clicked the Generate All button on the DS OAB tab I
got the following error: -ID#
Hi Everyone,
I have an interesting problem. I created a custom recipient and
directed the email coming to a mailbox to an alternate recipient (new
custom recipient) and the recipient. I am getting NDR's with A
configuration error in the e-mail system caused the message to bounce
between two
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
