RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I'll bet he does! I'll bet I do and still will! I'll bet there are a lot of us out there that didn't over-spec our servers... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 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, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Typically, I don't think you have a friggin clue about what you're talking about. I've had a 20gb+ store on a box running with 512MB of RAM. It worked just fine... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 1 gig of ram unless your strickly speaking of an smtp relay box. -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 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, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Sorry boss, I'd venture to say you know a lot less than most of us. My SQL box running a QMS app doesn't even use that much hardware and it's waaay more over tasked resource-wise than my Exchange server. Sounds like you robbed someone blind... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 would drastically reduce the disk i/o activity on this box which equates to cooler drives and a longer lasting exchange box. Maybe it's overkill but I'd much rather have an Exchange Box running at 1% processor utilization and have 20% of my physical ram free. Thanks. Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 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, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe:
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Memory usage on Exchange is whatever exchange wants to use. If it wants a gig of RAM, it will take it, if it wanted 2gigs of RAM, it would take it. I suggest you read some more... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 -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 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 Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 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, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
That's a network problem, not an exchange problem... D -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization How many, and what speed is your processor on your Exchange Box? I am running 1gMhz, with 1g Ram, for about 200 users, and I still get Requesting data from the Microsoft Exchange Server Share your secret on how you do that? Thanks Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
EXCUSE ME!!! It's not that I nor my company can't afford your server spec, it's the fact that I KNOW how to spec a server whereas it seems you DON'T. Your recommendation SUCKS! You recommended a system that should last 5-8 years!!! ROFLMFAO! PuH-LEASE! Technology changes too fast, NO SERVER will EVER LAST 5-8 years. I spec mine to get a maximum of four years. I don't need to re-evaluate how I spend money. I spread it around so I have the toys in place to manage the entire network and put new toys in place to improve upon the network. Your server is a waste of money. I could have used the spare cash and probably upgraded every switch in my server room to a Layer 3... Cannot afford to spec a server appropriately PUH-LEASE! Then again... I wanna know why it took you 20 posts to give us this... Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 Are we that happy about our title and certs? Does that make you feel all big and strong? Should we all start listing our titles and certs, how about our years of experience too? You gonna tell all of us we don't know how to spec a server? I know at least 10 people in this thread that will and have called BS on your specs... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yeah, I'm soo lacking in experience... I tell ya... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Please, most of us here wrote the book on how to sell to management... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Your opinion sucks... But please, continue sharing. I needed a new whipping boy, Tener's not up to it... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. You have the option of lending your alternative option to the discussion. This would give the person whom made the original post more alternatives. Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange Server. I am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn just like everyone else. However, I do intend to post my opinions. Thanks for your time. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Uh huh... Start back trackin now, you gotta long road to hoe... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I agree. The 5-8 years was a little far-fetched. However, I was simply trying to make a point. My goal is to get the most I can now. 3 years from now I'll do it again. And another point You guys are stuck on the mentality that I might be overpaying for something. I would like you to consider this. I don't know your situation but I personally have saved the company much more than I've convinced them to spend! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Funny, I have smooth running servers, happy users and happy management all in one big bundle. Are you saying that the more money spent, the better the systems run? Seems to be a rather ignorant perspective... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Maybe so... And your opinion is different, to say the least. All that really matters is that I'm happy with my setup and your happy with yours. Now the person whom originally posted the question has the opportunity to decide whether to implement your solution or mine. I am happy with my solution as are my users. Performance is awesome and the server runs smoothly. That means no late phone calls and no disgruntled users. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Your opinion sucks... But please, continue sharing. I needed a new whipping boy, Tener's not up to it... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. You have the option of lending your alternative option to the discussion. This would give the person whom made the original post more alternatives. Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange Server. I am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn just like everyone else. However, I do intend to post my opinions. Thanks for your time. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yeah, he can come and count my 1000+ implementations as well... They're spread across the world though, so it might be an expensive trip for him... D -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. But wasn't Don merely stating *his* opinion? Or is it only ok for you to have one? You know, when you have one opinion, and the majority of a large list, like ohh this one, have another opinion, then you might consider it time to re-evaluate your opinion. Someone else actually stated their server load and you basically told them they were wrong. That is going beyond stating an opinion, each person here probably knows best of all what is running on their own servers. I've got one here with only 1 gig of ram and 2500 users. According to you, that's impossible, but you are free to come visit this site and count them and still see if you feel that way. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rules for sysadmins # 705: If I am in any doubt as to how a wildcard will expand I will echo it first. -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
More is not always better... Efficiency is always best! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the conclusion that more is always better. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. You have the option of lending your alternative option to the discussion. This would give the person whom made the original post more alternatives. Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange Server. I am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn just like everyone else. However, I do intend to post my opinions. Thanks for your time. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 memory and 1Gb page file. It is the same spec as 4 other servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization. As it is a 24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited. Is there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can think of I can check? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin
RE: DNS Changes take how long
If'n they'll change the serial number on their DNS server, the updates will begin automagically. Otherwise, 24-72 hours is the norm... You should ask them though... D -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: DNS Changes take how long Well we are making the switch from a Eudora email server to a Exchange 2000 setup. The new Zone records will be sent to our ISP Verio. We are hoping all updates to other DNS servers will in place by Monday. Anybody think it will take longer than 48+ hours. We make the change request today at noon. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I haven't even begun to flame you! I'm sure there are those around here who will attest to that... It gets much better than this... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Not really. He states his opinion by flaming others opinions. Just seems rude to me but maybe that's just the way he is... -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. But wasn't Don merely stating *his* opinion? Or is it only ok for you to have one? You know, when you have one opinion, and the majority of a large list, like ohh this one, have another opinion, then you might consider it time to re-evaluate your opinion. Someone else actually stated their server load and you basically told them they were wrong. That is going beyond stating an opinion, each person here probably knows best of all what is running on their own servers. I've got one here with only 1 gig of ram and 2500 users. According to you, that's impossible, but you are free to come visit this site and count them and still see if you feel that way. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rules for sysadmins # 705: If I am in any doubt as to how a wildcard will expand I will echo it first. -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
LMAO!! OK OK, you got me on that one. Of course, for that much money, I could do that myself. VBG D -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Damn it Don, you're just wrong. The more money you spend, the better your systems will run... that is if you spend large sums of money bringing me in to do a design and operations review. Bring me in for $230k to do a 2 week consulting gig and if you're not completely satisfied I'll refund .100% of your money. -- 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: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Funny, I have smooth running servers, happy users and happy management all in one big bundle. Are you saying that the more money spent, the better the systems run? Seems to be a rather ignorant perspective... D _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: DNS Changes take how long
I don't have DNS probs silly... ;o) It's the other guy... D -Original Message- From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: DNS Changes take how long A dig on tripathimaging.com shows a default TTL of 24 hours, so it would take no more than that. I'd ask them to crank the TTL down on your stuff to an hour NOW. Then by the time they change the records, it will take no more than one hour for all caching hosts to update. The one hour is what I crank mine down to, when I foresee a change in DNS hosting coming down the pipe. Sometimes even 15 minutes, believe it or not. You may be happy with 6 or 12 or 24 hours; but the point is that a one hour TTL won't matter on a domain like tripathimaging.com; there aren't that many records. Verio shouldn't mind, either. -tom -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 11, 2002 09:55 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: DNS Changes take how long Subject: RE: DNS Changes take how long If'n they'll change the serial number on their DNS server, the updates will begin automagically. Otherwise, 24-72 hours is the norm... You should ask them though... D -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: DNS Changes take how long Well we are making the switch from a Eudora email server to a Exchange 2000 setup. The new Zone records will be sent to our ISP Verio. We are hoping all updates to other DNS servers will in place by Monday. Anybody think it will take longer than 48+ hours. We make the change request today at noon. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. You have the option of lending your alternative option to the discussion. This would give the person whom made the original post more alternatives. Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange Server. I am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn just like everyone else. However, I do intend to post my opinions. Thanks for your time. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual real world budgets to work with... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Ha ha ha ha LOL. Crack pipe. Nice one Don. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 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 second partition Run optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition. -Original Message- From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Well, I have found something that we both agree on. I am very much a fan of Dell Servers. In fact, every server room I touch is covered in Dell Blue and Cisco Green. As for your infrastructure theory, that is what most of us are paid for. I'm not satisfied if I don't get 99.999% uptime out of my network. I don't do downtime and I certainly don't tolerate downtime. Neither do most of the folks here. We do like to have a life outside of our jobs so we make sure we place the correct hardware in our infrastructure. That does NOT mean, we place the most powerful server we can buy for 400 users. At one of my previous jobs, we ran close to a 1000 users on a PII 400 with 256MB of RAM. Never had any downtime or performance issues... As has been stated, YMMV, but I seriously doubt all that hardware was necessary for your 400 users D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize. However, make correct decisions can be based on your specific environment. Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware preference does matter. You might use Compaq whereas I prefer Dell, someone else might preference IBM. I prefer to throw more hardware at the solution. As for the auditing, my department is audited 4 times per year by an internal audit group and once per year by an external audit group. Every year I pass with flying colors. Why, server uptime and stability, application availability, services availability, etc Downtime reports are seldom to say the least. However, I'm not bragging. I'm simply trying to add credibility to my proposal for appropriate hardware solutions. It does not stop with the servers. I purchase the best cabling, best patch panels, best switches, best security options, best monitoring options, etc... that I can. In my opinion, if your having a problem with a system it's always a good time to evaluate your infrastructure and hardware to keep these problems from occurring in the first place. Thanks for the time. Murphy -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level
RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus
You bastard! Need a body to fill the second seat? D -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus That's the AB I know.. Way to go, High Five man. I was just given 2 tickets, BOX seats for tonight's Sonics game. Guess where I will be at 7:00 Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus Screw em! I just did it -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus You sure? It is on my server? Wait I remember this, We had this conversation, didn't we AB? Your owners would not let you block that extension. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus Well isn't that a nice onecrap! -Original Message- From: Corney, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus The virus is not in the wild yet ,The extension is htm , which is not on Martins blocking list. http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=JS_GIGGER .A _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Singing The Administrator's Lament
LMAO!!! -Original Message- From: John Strongosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Singing The Administrator's Lament Thought I would share this with you all, go this from Tony Redmond's book Exchange Server for Windows 2000: The Administrator's Lament (With apologies to the Beatles, and thanks to Geoff Robb for the original idea) Yesterday, All those backups seemed a waste of pay. Now my database has gone away. Oh I believe in yesterday. Suddenly, There's not half the files there used to be, And there's a millstone hanging over me, The system crashed so suddenly. I did something wrong. What it was I could not say. Now all my data's gone And I long for yesterday-ay-ay-ay Tragedy, ESEUTIL won't even help me now, The Information Store is gone and I don't know how, Today will be my last day here. Yesterday, The need for backups seemed so far away. I thought my data was here to stay, Now I believe in yesterday. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: store.exe
I wouldn't suggest that. Exchange will give up the RAM when the system requests it. It's the nature of how it works. Are you actually seeing performance issues or do you just want to limit the usage? D -Original Message- From: Roger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 6:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: store.exe Hi all Does anyone know how to restrict the memory allocation used by Exchange 2000? I have a small site that keeps blowing out its memory. Wiondows 2000 SBS / Exchange 2000 service pack, IBM netserver with 896 Mb Ram with 10 users. The store.exe after 24 hours uses all the available RAM and will not release it for other applications so all applications are using the swap file which slows down the server.I would like to restrict the Information store to 384MB ram and allow the other processes to use the rest of the available RAM I know that the system is suppose to be self regulating but I would like to restrict it. I have read some of the articles on Technet but they only talk about restricting the treads and we have tried that but it still has the same problems. Thanks in advanced _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: exchange server freezes
Hey monkey boy, what kind of server hardware do you have!?!?! D -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes I wondering if my ups cause this over the weekend my ups was hit and the server shut down. Ussually the ups can hold up but this time it didnt I think I will purchase a new ups today due to too many hits over the past year. The only thing that runs at night is the backup. I also have right fax and that was getting hung up over the past weekend after server got hit. It seems to be working fine now -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Do you have any automated processes or scheduled tasks that run over night? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 15:41 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes So reinstall service pack6a it is or reinstall Bexec? m Thinkin thinkin Heads or Tails. Heads I reinstall Bexec Tail reinstall SP6a -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Whoosh! sound of last email going right over my head Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 15:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Ju-das Priest -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Im doing a registry backup, daily backup of two drives and a backup of the accountants database 98pc -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes What exactly are you backing up? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 15:14 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Yes the backup does finish. The server first showed that the backups were still running then the server froze and I switched the button to turn off the server. After I restarted it showed that the backups completed succesfully. -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Does the backup finish? If not What point during the backup does it hang? Whats being backed up? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 15:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes One time I didtry to connect to server manager but I couldnt connect to the server. It seemed to me that the server somehow lost network connection. Then I was able to open a few windows and then the server froze. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Are you sure its actually freezing? Maybe your shell is just freaking out. Next time it happens try to connect to it with server manager on another machine and see if you can shutdown services gracefully. Cold boot when services are running makes me fear a DB corruption. We had that happen here, and oddly enough the problem went away on its own. e- -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 6:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes I have to switch it off -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange server freezes Do you have to physically switch it off or does it still allow you to choose shutdown and restart? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 14:35 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: exchange server freezes My server which is nt 4.0 sp6a with exchange 5.5 has been freezing up for a couple of odd days in a row this week. I was just wondering if I
RE: Exchange Crash
I don't think you're being an a$$hole Tom. In fact, I have the same Q Article saved for that particular instance of a problem if I had ever run into it.3 As you said, Research is your friend... One should become intimately familiar with it if they desire to succeed in this industry. D -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Crash I was trying to hint that the search I provided you with would give you the answer you were looking for. I must be the a$$hole here, but the third document found in the search I provided you with tells you step by step how to do what you are asking. Since it's obvious you can't take a hint, and based on your statement, have no clue how to perform a search, I'll rephrase the statement for you. Rephrased prior statement: Although you have probably searched TechNet, it's clear that you haven't a clue how to word a search. Therefore, I will provide a search for you that will bring up documentation on how to identify the Org and Site names you are looking for with the files you have available. Go to http://support.microsoft.com and place the following words, without the quotation marks, in the search textbox located in the upper left hand portion of the window: recover exchange site name. The third document in the list will tell you how to recover the Org and Site names in a very clear step-by-step manner. I hope this helps! End of rephrased statement Research. It's your friend. Tom. -Original Message- From: Roger Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Crash Thanks for that but I have read most of the stuff on Technet but they all require site name and server name. -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, 10 January 2002 4:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Crash Have you gone to TechNet yet? If you search on recover exchange site name without the quotes, you get a bunch of useful information. Have you read the DR Whitepaper? Tom. -Original Message- From: Roger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Crash Hi All I am trying to find a way of recovering exchange 5.5 sp3 after a loss of the server. I have the *.edb files, but I don't khow the following - site name, organisation name and server name as the site did not document the server build. Is there any way of getting the exchange up and running so I can export the mailboxes to pst files. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
LMAO -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) I hear that ya'll take the day off in Chicago when Drew starts counting from day zero. So 'bout every 2 years? -Original Message- From: K. Triona Guidry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) At 12:40 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, WILLIAMS,JESSICA D wrote: Neaux. Also, the rest of the country doesn't take off work for Mardi Gras! No, but here in Chicago we take off work for baseball games and good weather. Most of the natives I know spend Mardi Gras hiding from the tourists. - K. Triona Guidry Guidry Consulting, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.guidryconsulting.com A girl's gotta have her standards. -- Real Genius _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
That will have to be added to the quote file for 2002! :o) D -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) I hear that ya'll take the day off in Chicago when Drew starts counting from day zero. So 'bout every 2 years? -Original Message- From: K. Triona Guidry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) At 12:40 PM 1/9/2002 -0600, WILLIAMS,JESSICA D wrote: Neaux. Also, the rest of the country doesn't take off work for Mardi Gras! No, but here in Chicago we take off work for baseball games and good weather. Most of the natives I know spend Mardi Gras hiding from the tourists. - K. Triona Guidry Guidry Consulting, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.guidryconsulting.com A girl's gotta have her standards. -- Real Genius _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
This from a man who has taken a rash of sh!t... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) If you don't like it...beat it!!! Simple as that. ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) That is what makes this list great. With out the humor of this list or the ability to vent like some of us do, I can envision some users getting Squashed when they call and say the entire internet is down come fix it now Thomas is very correct. The top of the exchange world visits this list. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) You've got to be kidding... The excessive sarcasm is what ruins this list. This list contains far too many wannabee comedians and scornful nerds.. - Previously from Thomas Nardo: If you can't hack the sarcasm, you might consider a different list (maybe the carebears one). The sarcasm is what makes this list great in my opinion. Everyone who is anyone in the Exchange world is here. Did you run home with your ball when the other kids noticed you had highwaters? --- .+x )r뺷 ퟘ� zǭȱr:楞˱m [y z[)rÉ Z Zvh˧+-i٢2̞G( _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
Damn! Not enough coffee yet... :o) D -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Bog dogs? Would they be anything like Hounds of the Baskervilles? - Original Message - From: Don Ely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:22 AM Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Did we hurt your wittle feewings??? Go find another list and see if you can find the same quantity of knowledge. If you can't run with the bog dogs, get out of our house! D -Original Message- From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) You've got to be kidding... The excessive sarcasm is what ruins this list. This list contains far too many wannabee comedians and scornful nerds.. - Previously from Thomas Nardo: If you can't hack the sarcasm, you might consider a different list (maybe the carebears one). The sarcasm is what makes this list great in my opinion. Everyone who is anyone in the Exchange world is here. Did you run home with your ball when the other kids noticed you had highwaters? --- .+--xm ,)按r( \檆b娽!驶 0 zǚ䠱r鮬:.˛ m隊[hy愠\z[,潥)r㉄Z Zvh᳧+-i٢2鯞G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
I'm fricken hilarious! I kill me sometimes! D -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) I think I'm damn funny! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Someone needs to get laid... Actually, I'm not a wanna be comedian, I'm officially one. My title includes word manager and as many can testify that automajikally makes me a comedian. -Original Message- From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) You've got to be kidding... The excessive sarcasm is what ruins this list. This list contains far too many wannabee comedians and scornful nerds.. - Previously from Thomas Nardo: If you can't hack the sarcasm, you might consider a different list (maybe the carebears one). The sarcasm is what makes this list great in my opinion. Everyone who is anyone in the Exchange world is here. Did you run home with your ball when the other kids noticed you had highwaters? --- .+--xm ,)r(ື \檆b=!6 0 zǚ1r,:.˛ m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZ Zvh'+-i٢2 G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
Yeah! See it means something! ;o) D -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) A dog the lives in a bog. bog (bôg, bg) n. - An area having a wet, spongy, acidic substrate composed chiefly of sphagnum moss and peat in which characteristic shrubs and herbs and sometimes trees usually grow. - Any of certain other wetland areas, such as a fen, having a peat substrate. Also called peat bog. - An area of soft, naturally waterlogged ground. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) WTF is a bog dog??? -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Did we hurt your wittle feewings??? Go find another list and see if you can find the same quantity of knowledge. If you can't run with the bog dogs, get out of our house! D -Original Message- From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) You've got to be kidding... The excessive sarcasm is what ruins this list. This list contains far too many wannabee comedians and scornful nerds.. - Previously from Thomas Nardo: If you can't hack the sarcasm, you might consider a different list (maybe the carebears one). The sarcasm is what makes this list great in my opinion. Everyone who is anyone in the Exchange world is here. Did you run home with your ball when the other kids noticed you had highwaters? --- .+--xm ,)按r( \檆b娽!驶 0 zǚ䠱r鮬:.˛ m隊[hy愠\z[,潥)r㉄Z Zvh᳧+-i٢2鯞G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] .+--xm ,)r(ື \檆b=!6 0 zǚ1r,:.˛ m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZ Zvh'+-i٢2 G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
Perzactly! Ya'll stop pickin on me! I'm feewing hurt and sad... Nobody wikes me... Wh The carebear list is where? ;o) D -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Which is a reference to the Hounds of Baskervilles - Original Message - From: Thomas Di Nardo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) A dog the lives in a bog. bog (bôg, bg) n. - An area having a wet, spongy, acidic substrate composed chiefly of sphagnum moss and peat in which characteristic shrubs and herbs and sometimes trees usually grow. - Any of certain other wetland areas, such as a fen, having a peat substrate. Also called peat bog. - An area of soft, naturally waterlogged ground. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) WTF is a bog dog??? -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Did we hurt your wittle feewings??? Go find another list and see if you can find the same quantity of knowledge. If you can't run with the bog dogs, get out of our house! D -Original Message- From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) You've got to be kidding... The excessive sarcasm is what ruins this list. This list contains far too many wannabee comedians and scornful nerds.. - Previously from Thomas Nardo: If you can't hack the sarcasm, you might consider a different list (maybe the carebears one). The sarcasm is what makes this list great in my opinion. Everyone who is anyone in the Exchange world is here. Did you run home with your ball when the other kids noticed you had highwaters? --- .+--xm ,)按r( \檆b娽!驶 0 zǚ䠱r鮬:.˛ m隊[hy愠\z[,潥)r㉄Z Zvh᳧+-i٢2鯞G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] .+--xm ,)桴r(亷 \b!娶 0 䧑zǚᡱr庬:.˛ m隊[hy\z[,散)rZ Zvh餧+-i٢2᳞G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
You're friggin hilarious... NOT! :P D -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Yea, I wanna kill you too sometimes! See, I am funny!!! -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) I'm fricken hilarious! I kill me sometimes! D -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) I think I'm damn funny! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Someone needs to get laid... Actually, I'm not a wanna be comedian, I'm officially one. My title includes word manager and as many can testify that automajikally makes me a comedian. -Original Message- From: Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) You've got to be kidding... The excessive sarcasm is what ruins this list. This list contains far too many wannabee comedians and scornful nerds.. - Previously from Thomas Nardo: If you can't hack the sarcasm, you might consider a different list (maybe the carebears one). The sarcasm is what makes this list great in my opinion. Everyone who is anyone in the Exchange world is here. Did you run home with your ball when the other kids noticed you had highwaters? --- .+--xm ,)r(ື \檆b=!6 0 zǚ1r,:.˛ m隊[hy\z[,)rɄZ Zvh'+-i٢2 G( _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: connecting exchange 5.5 and 2000 without upgrading or combini ng
X.400 and Directory Replication connectors should garner enough info for what you need to do... http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q147/7/75.asp http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q147/7/72.asp These articles will be a good start... D -Original Message- From: James Lavoie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: connecting exchange 5.5 and 2000 without upgrading or combining Can anyone please point me toward some specific documentation on making these two servers from different organizations and different NT domains communicate and transfer email? I have tried several searches on technet and came up with nothing relevant. Any help would greatly be appreciated. Thanks, J _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
That would depend on the thickness of your skin... :o) D -Original Message- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Question: I'm probably one of the newest people on this list, and I think its great that you guys are throwing in a little fun to the thing, but how do I know when enough is enough? PROFITLAB Network Engineer PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David Florea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Cool. A hog bog dog. -Original Message- From: Walt Brannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) We have bog dogs here in Louisiana. They run after hogs in the swamp. Their classy name is Catahoula Cur, they are the official Louisiana dog. Their origin goes back to DeSoto's war dogs cross bread with the red wolf. Whoo ... some kind of fierce dog. Walt Brannon University of New Orleans -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Yea, WTF is a Bog Dog? :) ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not)
In that case, there will almost never be enough... There'd be a lot of engineers going postal if they weren't allowed to crack a few jokes and smile once in a while. :o) D -Original Message- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Its not the thickness of my Skin I'm worried about PROFITLAB Network Engineer PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) That would depend on the thickness of your skin... :o) D -Original Message- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Question: I'm probably one of the newest people on this list, and I think its great that you guys are throwing in a little fun to the thing, but how do I know when enough is enough? PROFITLAB Network Engineer PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: David Florea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Cool. A hog bog dog. -Original Message- From: Walt Brannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) We have bog dogs here in Louisiana. They run after hogs in the swamp. Their classy name is Catahoula Cur, they are the official Louisiana dog. Their origin goes back to DeSoto's war dogs cross bread with the red wolf. Whoo ... some kind of fierce dog. Walt Brannon University of New Orleans -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sarcasm makes this list great (Not) Yea, WTF is a Bog Dog? :) ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Win2k backup and Exchange
You've never heard of database logging have you? In the event of a restore, when the IS is restored and the transaction logs are replayed, you have lost nothing. You can restore right up to the point of failure. Therefore your use of Differentials is unwarranted D -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange I have read it and I want to reiterate that I do plan on doing a nightly full backup. However, since the Exchange server has it's own tape backup system, I would also like to do differentials in addition to the full. Therefore, should a complete crash happen I'm backed up to within an hour or so of crash time rather than the previous night. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange David, First,I would read the paper disaster recovery. Second,I would ask the question why can you not do full (normal) backups every day unless of course your data outstrips your tape size on each server. I think you are reading into differentials too deeply. Personally I would recommend Veritas Backupexec as NTBackup is a stripped down version albeit free, but again it comes down to the horses for courses and each person can tell a different story where backups are concerned. My reasoning is the restore times from testing are faster with Veritas. Whether you want to pay that much more is the question?. Yours sincerely, Sean McGilligan [ I realize there are no stupid questions but only stupid people who ask questions so I'll throw my hat into the stupid ring as this is probably very simple... I finally got my boss to buy a DLT drive exclusively for each of my Exchange 2000 servers. From all I've read here and elsewhere I decided to use NTBackup rather than ARCServe on my servers. I cannot, however, find a way to setup the backups correctly. I aim to do a nightly full backup at 11pm with differentials every two hours from 6am until 8pm when the tape would be replaced for that night's backup. I see in the backup wizard how to set the daily backup as a normal and how to schedule a second differential backup for only the information store at my selected times. However, the option to append rather than overwrite the media is grayed out on the differential. If this differential is going to overwrite the full backup then a single tape source for backup isn't feasible. I'm sure it is but I'm just missing something so anything you can offer would be appreciated. ] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, Russell, P.A. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Win2k backup and Exchange
Geee That's the second time in a week we've seen these links. I wonder why that is... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange READ IT. Learn it. Love it. Tell it nice things. Sleep with it under you pillow 5.5 DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupResto re.asp 2k DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/e2krecovery.a sp --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange You've never heard of database logging have you? In the event of a restore, when the IS is restored and the transaction logs are replayed, you have lost nothing. You can restore right up to the point of failure. Therefore your use of Differentials is unwarranted D -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange I have read it and I want to reiterate that I do plan on doing a nightly full backup. However, since the Exchange server has it's own tape backup system, I would also like to do differentials in addition to the full. Therefore, should a complete crash happen I'm backed up to within an hour or so of crash time rather than the previous night. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange David, First,I would read the paper disaster recovery. Second,I would ask the question why can you not do full (normal) backups every day unless of course your data outstrips your tape size on each server. I think you are reading into differentials too deeply. Personally I would recommend Veritas Backupexec as NTBackup is a stripped down version albeit free, but again it comes down to the horses for courses and each person can tell a different story where backups are concerned. My reasoning is the restore times from testing are faster with Veritas. Whether you want to pay that much more is the question?. Yours sincerely, Sean McGilligan [ I realize there are no stupid questions but only stupid people who ask questions so I'll throw my hat into the stupid ring as this is probably very simple... I finally got my boss to buy a DLT drive exclusively for each of my Exchange 2000 servers. From all I've read here and elsewhere I decided to use NTBackup rather than ARCServe on my servers. I cannot, however, find a way to setup the backups correctly. I aim to do a nightly full backup at 11pm with differentials every two hours from 6am until 8pm when the tape would be replaced for that night's backup. I see in the backup wizard how to set the daily backup as a normal and how to schedule a second differential backup for only the information store at my selected times. However, the option to append rather than overwrite the media is grayed out on the differential. If this differential is going to overwrite the full backup then a single tape source for backup isn't feasible. I'm sure it is but I'm just missing something so anything you can offer would be appreciated. ] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this message. Please note that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any attachments may not have been produced by Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster, Russell, P.A. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch
RE: Win2k backup and Exchange
H. What a novel concept! Actually reading documents that have been placed out there for our perusal to make our jobs easier. Who'd a thunk it? D -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange Could it ... Because everyone should read then don? And the fact that I have them at the top of my links to email file. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange Geee That's the second time in a week we've seen these links. I wonder why that is... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange READ IT. Learn it. Love it. Tell it nice things. Sleep with it under you pillow 5.5 DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupResto re.asp 2k DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/e2krecovery.a sp --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange You've never heard of database logging have you? In the event of a restore, when the IS is restored and the transaction logs are replayed, you have lost nothing. You can restore right up to the point of failure. Therefore your use of Differentials is unwarranted D -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange I have read it and I want to reiterate that I do plan on doing a nightly full backup. However, since the Exchange server has it's own tape backup system, I would also like to do differentials in addition to the full. Therefore, should a complete crash happen I'm backed up to within an hour or so of crash time rather than the previous night. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange David, First,I would read the paper disaster recovery. Second,I would ask the question why can you not do full (normal) backups every day unless of course your data outstrips your tape size on each server. I think you are reading into differentials too deeply. Personally I would recommend Veritas Backupexec as NTBackup is a stripped down version albeit free, but again it comes down to the horses for courses and each person can tell a different story where backups are concerned. My reasoning is the restore times from testing are faster with Veritas. Whether you want to pay that much more is the question?. Yours sincerely, Sean McGilligan [ I realize there are no stupid questions but only stupid people who ask questions so I'll throw my hat into the stupid ring as this is probably very simple... I finally got my boss to buy a DLT drive exclusively for each of my Exchange 2000 servers. From all I've read here and elsewhere I decided to use NTBackup rather than ARCServe on my servers. I cannot, however, find a way to setup the backups correctly. I aim to do a nightly full backup at 11pm with differentials every two hours from 6am until 8pm when the tape would be replaced for that night's backup. I see in the backup wizard how to set the daily backup as a normal and how to schedule a second differential backup for only the information store at my selected times. However, the option to append rather than overwrite the media is grayed out on the differential. If this differential is going to overwrite the full backup then a single tape source for backup isn't feasible. I'm sure it is but I'm just missing something so anything you can offer would be appreciated. ] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660
RE: Clustering Book
I understand Bob Barker has experience in this arena as well... ;o) D -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Clustering Book I have some Exchange books clustered on my bookshelf. The whitepapers on the Microsoft site are not bad. What consulting service have you chosen to use for this deployment? If unselected, may I recommend Scharff and Associates? William -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Clustering Book Does anyone know of a good book to read for implementing clustering on an exchange server. I want to upgrade windows nt 4.0 exchange 5.5 to windows 2000 adv exchange 2000 adv. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Win2k backup and Exchange
If your backups are so damn important, why do you use some crappy a$$ backup product like ArcCrap? If your lawyers want so much out of so little, why don't you explain to them that in order to reach their desired goal, they will have to spend some coin to accomplish this? Might I suggest CommVault Galaxy? Having nightly full backups or differentials will give you no love in a entire server crash. Is your system so unstable that it crashes that frequently? Would you not see a full-blown crash coming if you were performing periodic system maintenance? I would see it, I have seen it... I've done many disaster recoveries in my time and most every time, I have been able to recover every piece of mail. Exactly, what kind of service are these lawyers expecting? Are you planning on keeping backups up to date within the hour or something? Again, why are you not using a REAL backup solution if your data is sooo sensitive and your needs so great? Sounds to me like someone told these lawyers they could offer a high level SLA with a very poor plan in place... Just my opinion of course... I know what I can offer and how I will offer it though... -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange As much as I appreciate multiple links and sarcastic comments, I do not see anywhere in the whitepaper from either 5.5 or 2000 on how you can roll logs forward IF THE LOGS AREN'T THERE... Have you ever heard of a full system crash? Although I admit it is much less likely than any other type of failure it is still possible to lose the entire server, isn't it? And if it is, the logs you are so fond of referring to will be about as useful as your sarcasm. If you ever have the misfortune to work for lawyers you will find that there are certain things you do and deal with and a full system daily backup which is as up-to-date as possible is an absolute requirement. That is the reason that I am asking and why I feel my use of differentials is warranted. If I am not mistaken, a tape of any sort is only going to be as useful as the last information written to it if that is the only source of data, is it not? Therefore, a full server crash in the late afternoon with only last night's full backup leaves you SOL for almost a full day's work. However, if I am incorrect in my assumption that a tape which contains a full backup along with differential backups will allow me to rebuild my server completely and restore it to the point of the last differential then I would honestly be interested in hearing why. Furthermore, if there is a way to restore and roll the logs should the server that the logs were on be completely dead using just a full backup from the night before than I retract all sarcasm on my part and look forward to hearing how that process would work. -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange READ IT. Learn it. Love it. Tell it nice things. Sleep with it under you pillow 5.5 DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupResto re.asp 2k DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/e2krecovery.a sp --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange You've never heard of database logging have you? In the event of a restore, when the IS is restored and the transaction logs are replayed, you have lost nothing. You can restore right up to the point of failure. Therefore your use of Differentials is unwarranted D -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange I have read it and I want to reiterate that I do plan on doing a nightly full backup. However, since the Exchange server has it's own tape backup system, I would also like to do differentials in addition to the full. Therefore, should a complete crash happen I'm backed up to within an hour or so of crash time rather than the previous night. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange David, First,I would read the paper disaster recovery. Second,I would ask the question why can you not do full (normal) backups every day unless of course your data outstrips your tape size on each server. I think you are reading into differentials too deeply. Personally I would recommend Veritas Backupexec as NTBackup
RE: Win2k backup and Exchange
I think our friend is assuming his entire server died. In which case, he'd be what I would consider a reactive admin versus a proactive admin... Servers don't just crash David. There is always something that leads up to the crash and with real hardware in place such as Compaq, Dell, or otherwise, you will get some kind of indication ahead of time that disaster is near. As Ken mentioned, log files should always be on another spindle unless there are some financial constraints. Being that these lawyers are requiring so much, they should be willing to spend a little cheddar to get the right tools in place to accomplish the task at hand. D -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange You simply put your log files on a separate physical disk from the store. -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 1:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange As much as I appreciate multiple links and sarcastic comments, I do not see anywhere in the whitepaper from either 5.5 or 2000 on how you can roll logs forward IF THE LOGS AREN'T THERE... Have you ever heard of a full system crash? Although I admit it is much less likely than any other type of failure it is still possible to lose the entire server, isn't it? And if it is, the logs you are so fond of referring to will be about as useful as your sarcasm. If you ever have the misfortune to work for lawyers you will find that there are certain things you do and deal with and a full system daily backup which is as up-to-date as possible is an absolute requirement. That is the reason that I am asking and why I feel my use of differentials is warranted. If I am not mistaken, a tape of any sort is only going to be as useful as the last information written to it if that is the only source of data, is it not? Therefore, a full server crash in the late afternoon with only last night's full backup leaves you SOL for almost a full day's work. However, if I am incorrect in my assumption that a tape which contains a full backup along with differential backups will allow me to rebuild my server completely and restore it to the point of the last differential then I would honestly be interested in hearing why. Furthermore, if there is a way to restore and roll the logs should the server that the logs were on be completely dead using just a full backup from the night before than I retract all sarcasm on my part and look forward to hearing how that process would work. -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange READ IT. Learn it. Love it. Tell it nice things. Sleep with it under you pillow 5.5 DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupResto re.asp 2k DR white paper http://www.microsoft.com/Exchange/techinfo/deployment/2000/e2krecovery.a sp --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange You've never heard of database logging have you? In the event of a restore, when the IS is restored and the transaction logs are replayed, you have lost nothing. You can restore right up to the point of failure. Therefore your use of Differentials is unwarranted D -Original Message- From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange I have read it and I want to reiterate that I do plan on doing a nightly full backup. However, since the Exchange server has it's own tape backup system, I would also like to do differentials in addition to the full. Therefore, should a complete crash happen I'm backed up to within an hour or so of crash time rather than the previous night. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Win2k backup and Exchange David, First,I would read the paper disaster recovery. Second,I would ask the question why can you not do full (normal) backups every day unless of course your data outstrips your tape size on each server. I think you are reading into differentials too deeply. Personally I would recommend Veritas Backupexec as NTBackup is a stripped down version albeit free, but again it comes down to the horses for courses and each person can tell a different story where backups are concerned. My reasoning is the restore times from testing are faster with Veritas. Whether you want to pay that much
RE: More Exchange Help (this is just not my day...)
Michael, Read the Q Articles that Kevin and I sent you. E2K is nested in the AD structure. Without wiping out your entire AD domain or following the Q Articles we sent you, you will be SOL. D -Original Message- From: Michael Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: More Exchange Help (this is just not my day...) Okay, There are 2 machines. First machine is a 2000 Server Domain Controller. Second machine is a 2000 Server with Exchange 2000 on there. If I reinstall the Operating System on the Second Machine but give it the same name as before, and I install Exchange 2000 on there once again, what residual things are left behind on the Domain Controller, from the Original install of EX2K on the Second machine? This is all I want to know. Thanks all for your patience with me :) Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Kevin Miller Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: More Exchange Help (this is just not my day...) I have a big smile on right now. But you know have such a great attitude and enthusiasm, Lets see what we can do to help. Go check these out, and call us back when you are done. Exchange uninstall http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q260378 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q273478 --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Drive thru Admin, Would you like Fries with that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael Anderson Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: More Exchange Help (this is just not my day...) Importance: High Hello All, After all the problems that you've all seen me have, I went and did a complete reinstall of the Exchange Server. I mean - everything, like reformatting the drives, reinstalling 2000 Server, and the whole 9-yards. What I wanted to do, is take snapshots of a pre-Exchange 2000 Installed system - so I can compare all of the changes that take place when you install the EX2K server. And NOW, I can't even install the Exchange 2000 Server software! - I can select the Topmost Component in the Installation Menu and select Custom. Then sub tree items like Microsoft Exchange Messaging Collaboration Services gives me the following error message when I try to check off the Install option: The component 'Microsoft Exchange Messaging Collaboration Services' cannot be assigned 'Install' because: A server object for this server 'Exchange' already exists in the Administrative Group 'First Administrative Group'. You must either remove this server object before installing, or run Setup with the 'Disaster Recovery' switch if you are attempting this server. Should I just shoot myself right now? Just for kicks, I tried the Disaster Recovery option, and then the install kicked off again, selected that Option, then it gave me a new error message saying that I need to run the Domain Prep crap - blah blah blah... So I tried that, it ran fine, then ran the install again, then errored out again! What the heck is it finding? It HAS to be something left behind from the previous Exchange 2000 Install - on the 2000 Server Domain Controller because it's impossible to have anything left on the old box because it was ALL BLOWN AWAY. Using Active Directory Administrator on the Domain Controller, I deleted the 2 Exchange Specific Groups that were created from the last EX2K Server Install figuring that's what the Error Message was referring to, but that didn't fix the problem. Does anybody have any ideas as to what I need to do, in order to perform a 100% Fresh EX2K install on a Fresh Windows 2000 Server? At this point, I am painfully remembering WHY I avoided using Exchange over the past several years. I am NOT giving up though - I really need to get this working, and I hate spending entire days, on attempting to get some of the most basic features of the software running, before I can get into all the fun stuff - like actually adding users, virtual domains, tweaking and optimizing - you know, actually USING the software for it's intended purpose before I get my butt fired??? I am a very frustrated person right now ... uggh Thanks in advance for all your expertise, Mike _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ:
RE: changing port
I look forward to those who are sending you mail to connect to a port other than the RFC standard port 25 then. Or are you saying mail will still be received on port 25 to the Mail Marshall server and then forwarded off of port 97 to the Exchange server? D -Original Message- From: Smith Thomas Contr 911 SPTG/SC [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: changing port We are using Mail Marshall and the reason port 25 needs to be change is because Mail Marshall uses this port(97) for mail and sends mail to Exchange Server, instead of Exchange recieving it first. Mail Marshall is acting like a mail security gateway for Exchange. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: More Exchange Help (this is just not my day...)
Let me understand this... You rebuilt a W2K server from the ground up that was a member of a W2K AD with E2K installed and you're having these problems? Is anyone else smiling or laughing right now? Might I suggest you read this link and learn to use this website... http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%2fsearch%2fviewDoc.aspx%3fdo cID%3dKC.Q273478%26dialogID%3d8256405%26iterationID%3d1%26sessionID%3danonym ous%7c6072703 The link may wrap... D -Original Message- From: Michael Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: More Exchange Help (this is just not my day...) Importance: High Hello All, After all the problems that you've all seen me have, I went and did a complete reinstall of the Exchange Server. I mean - everything, like reformatting the drives, reinstalling 2000 Server, and the whole 9-yards. What I wanted to do, is take snapshots of a pre-Exchange 2000 Installed system - so I can compare all of the changes that take place when you install the EX2K server. And NOW, I can't even install the Exchange 2000 Server software! - I can select the Topmost Component in the Installation Menu and select Custom. Then sub tree items like Microsoft Exchange Messaging Collaboration Services gives me the following error message when I try to check off the Install option: The component 'Microsoft Exchange Messaging Collaboration Services' cannot be assigned 'Install' because: A server object for this server 'Exchange' already exists in the Administrative Group 'First Administrative Group'. You must either remove this server object before installing, or run Setup with the 'Disaster Recovery' switch if you are attempting this server. Should I just shoot myself right now? Just for kicks, I tried the Disaster Recovery option, and then the install kicked off again, selected that Option, then it gave me a new error message saying that I need to run the Domain Prep crap - blah blah blah... So I tried that, it ran fine, then ran the install again, then errored out again! What the heck is it finding? It HAS to be something left behind from the previous Exchange 2000 Install - on the 2000 Server Domain Controller because it's impossible to have anything left on the old box because it was ALL BLOWN AWAY. Using Active Directory Administrator on the Domain Controller, I deleted the 2 Exchange Specific Groups that were created from the last EX2K Server Install figuring that's what the Error Message was referring to, but that didn't fix the problem. Does anybody have any ideas as to what I need to do, in order to perform a 100% Fresh EX2K install on a Fresh Windows 2000 Server? At this point, I am painfully remembering WHY I avoided using Exchange over the past several years. I am NOT giving up though - I really need to get this working, and I hate spending entire days, on attempting to get some of the most basic features of the software running, before I can get into all the fun stuff - like actually adding users, virtual domains, tweaking and optimizing - you know, actually USING the software for it's intended purpose before I get my butt fired??? I am a very frustrated person right now ... uggh Thanks in advance for all your expertise, Mike _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: anyone know
Funny, I lived in Island for a couple of years and I'm pretty sure no part of NC could compare with how cold it got there in the winter. ;o) I'll be outside of Raleigh though and while it does get chilly, it's certainly something that won't bother me. D UNIX is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus. -Peter H. Coffin -Original Message- From: WILLIAMS,JESSICA D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know As long as you're away from the coast. I've never lived in the Northwest, but nor'easter's (small winter hurricanes) make Iceland seem like a warm place. I lived in Va Beach for 3 years and Iceland for 2 and a half. It was definitely a toss up as to which was warmer some days. Jessica -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know As a side note, I'm fixin to move to NC which will be considerably warmer though. ;o) D There is nothing to fear but fear itself. -Franklin D. Roosevelt -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Well, Ellensburg is in the mountains. Of course you'll freeze your hiney off! ;o) I do like Major Applewhite as well though, too bad he's playin the Dawgs today... ;o) D There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know I'm rootin' for the Longhorns myself, not that I really care being a native So Cal boy. I just like Major and Texas in general. I also spent one year in Washington (Ellensburg) and froze my ass off the whole time so I generally have negative memories. But the tickets, food, and beer are all free [1]. [1] I'm just a vendor 'ho -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Go Huskies!! -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Yep, and the Huskies are going to whoop on the Longhorn's! [1] ;o) D [1] Or so I hope they do...[2] [2] Dr. Dogg, where are you? [3] [3] He's probably suffering the BAS syndrome [4] [4] HI SHERRY!!! ;o) The true test of character is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do. -John Holt -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know mutter Ramming speed gentlemen, and load the fish taco torpedoes. [1] [1] Of course firing them AWAY from Andy's general direction inflicting much pain on him. [2] [2] You know, I think I'll go have Rubio's at Qualcomm Stadium later today [3] [3] Holiday Bowl today you know. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Ah yes. I remember them on the Ed Sullivan Show. The Singing Pilgrims. -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know It's something the Pilgrims singed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What is a Compaq? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know hold on let me check -Original Message- From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What does the network admin say? Seriously what does it say in the Compaq array config util? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: anyone know I have 4 18.2 gig scsi drives and one of the lights on the 4th drive is not lit up and the server is a compaq prol ml370. Does this mean the hard drive failed. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: New year, no contract
Gary is most certainly no donkey! You and your spamming friend Paul are both shall I say... Ignorant, pompous, moron's. You and your spamming friend have earned the title's of Richard Cranium Sr. and Richard Cranium Jr.. I'll let the two of you fight over who was the first to be denoted as Richard Cranium. D The secret to success is to know something nobody else knows. -Aristotle Onassis -Original Message- From: Paul J. Caritj [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New year, no contract You're an ass. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Slinger, Gary Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New year, no contract Well here's a thought genius - try using a jobsearch site, like, oh I don't know, how about www.jobsearch.co.uk? Rather than spamming this list with your pathetic little almost-resume? Particularly as this list knows what a jerk you made of yourself with ORB UK. Complete arrogance and ineptitude in your behaviour regarding UCE, and yet here you are now spamming several thousand computer professionals. Alternatively, please practice Would you like fries with that?, as that is probably the best place for you to end up. [1] Gary [1] And for added giggle value folks, the listed rate of 35 thousand euros, well that's around 21 thousand pounds sterling, or 31 thousand US dollars. Pretty much what you could get as a starting manager at some corporate fast-food joint... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 15:36 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OT: New year, no contract Hi folks... Off topic for the list, but what the hell, it's christmas. Since ORB UK is now closed pending the creation of Horus, that means I'm out of contract now. I'm 30, been using MS since before they bought DOS, and I'm a Microsoft Partner in my own right. I have experience in Windows from 3.1 to ME, OS/2 and NT from 2.1 to XP, DOS'en from 3.3 to 7.1, and Linux. I also use BeOS, MacOS X, FreeBSD and SVR4. My current 'learning experience' is QNX. I have experience of Sendmail, QMail, Exim, Exchange 5 and 5.5, and Mailtraq, and have used SPTM, POP3, APOP, ETRN and ODMR. I've been doing telephone and deskside support for the better end of 4 years, and was part of the support team during the launch of Telewest SurfUnlimited. I've used and supported ISDN, ADSL, and Cable Modems, as well as Leased Line, Routed Solutions and Plain Old dial-up. Sad though I am, I can identify a modem model and a RAS by ear. With Lucent Portmasters, I can even tell the ComOs release by listening to it. I'm based in Basingstoke, UK, but don't mind commuting, consulting, homeworking, Remote Adminning, or even travelling if the price is right. I'll do Contract or Permanent, and would be looking for 25 per hour for Contract or 35,000 per annum for permanent. If you want more info, or a CV, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many thanks all. -- Dr Paul Cummins - Internet Engineer | /\ASCII RIBBON Tel: 07021 117179 Fax: 07092 105150 + \ / CAMPAIGN Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| X AGAINST HTML MAIL | / \AND POSTINGS _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Haiku Friday
No Haiku here William was Being sarcastic As he can Be at times D Many a man's reputation would not know his character if they met on the street. -Elbert Hubbard -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Haiku Friday I don't know William... Sounds like you're unsatisfied Living here with us. Having served ten years as an Army Staff Sergeant, Proud of my country. Just one more question, Do you stand up or salute This nation's great flag? If you would like to... I'll buy you a one-way trip To third-world nation. -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Haiku Friday God Bless the U.S.? The most successful country? Bless Afghanistan! Freedom to express? Fire! in a crowded theatre? BLB = good? Unprecedented World co-operation From this tragedy. We thank the nations By withdrawing from thirty Year old bomb treaty. Yes sir, Mr Blunt, Should the 'good' win in the end I hope it's still us. -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 12/28/01 8:16 AM Subject: RE: Haiku Friday An old year going One we will never forget Hope youngsters learn well Much tragedy, much good Some have experienced pain Some became heroes Don't think bad people will overcome the good ones Good wins in the end Bin Laden look out We're going to find you soon We won't have mercy To all our heroes in our cities everywhere I salute you now My heart is with brave military personnel protecting our lives A new year coming We'll celebrate all night long Having fun with friends No country like ours Has the freedom to express God Bless the US _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5
You're running W2K Adv. Server on a P-133??? I seriously doubt that! D Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I have version 3.52 with 5.5 sp4 on a Win2k Advanced server SP2. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Ron, what version of Scanmail are you running and what SP is your Exch server on? -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I feel the same way. I really researched for the best solution back then, and scanmail it has proven to be great...no crashed servers, no bluescreens etc. We did have a few outbreaks, but that was I think due to scanmail being on a P-133 and not being able to keep up with the influx. IF I can build a strong enough case against NAV for scanning...and just do the server/client side solution only, that would be great. I almost want to install it, and have things crash for them not asking me about this...but IM the one that has to recover the thing! :( Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Going from Scanmail to NAV is like going from Prime Rib to ground round Your company will be very sorry it made this move. Since you already have Scanmail, there is no reason to dump it. I would SERIOUSLY put my foot down on this and fight it all the way to the top. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Hi Folks, I just found out we are going with The Norton Solution for our company anti-virus protection. This is fine for server and client, but I was also told we would be using NAV's solution for Exchange. (Groupware I think). Since I was not involved in this decision, but was the sole decision maker when I chose Scanmail...im not too happy. But...I turn to y'all again, as I did a few years ago for info on the best AV solution. This time I'm asking what kind of problems will I see with this new NAV scan engine that was chosen for MY Email servers? Is the NAV a solid, non-flaky product for Exchange? I couldn't really find anything major from the net..but y'all would know best. Thanks! Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5
A That, I can see... :o) D Burnout: Attitudes are contagious, mine might kill you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Haha! no, everything is on a rack server now..mo gigage processor, and rammage! This server made all the difference in the world with my environment. I was giving scanmail a bike to run a car race back then. :) -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 You're running W2K Adv. Server on a P-133??? I seriously doubt that! D Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I have version 3.52 with 5.5 sp4 on a Win2k Advanced server SP2. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Ron, what version of Scanmail are you running and what SP is your Exch server on? -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I feel the same way. I really researched for the best solution back then, and scanmail it has proven to be great...no crashed servers, no bluescreens etc. We did have a few outbreaks, but that was I think due to scanmail being on a P-133 and not being able to keep up with the influx. IF I can build a strong enough case against NAV for scanning...and just do the server/client side solution only, that would be great. I almost want to install it, and have things crash for them not asking me about this...but IM the one that has to recover the thing! :( Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Going from Scanmail to NAV is like going from Prime Rib to ground round Your company will be very sorry it made this move. Since you already have Scanmail, there is no reason to dump it. I would SERIOUSLY put my foot down on this and fight it all the way to the top. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Hi Folks, I just found out we are going with The Norton Solution for our company anti-virus protection. This is fine for server and client, but I was also told we would be using NAV's solution for Exchange. (Groupware I think). Since I was not involved in this decision, but was the sole decision maker when I chose Scanmail...im not too happy. But...I turn to y'all again, as I did a few years ago for info on the best AV solution. This time I'm asking what kind of problems will I see with this new NAV scan engine that was chosen for MY Email servers? Is the NAV a solid, non-flaky product for Exchange? I couldn't really find anything major from the net..but y'all would know best. Thanks! Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: anyone know
Yep, and the Huskies are going to whoop on the Longhorn's! [1] ;o) D [1] Or so I hope they do...[2] [2] Dr. Dogg, where are you? [3] [3] He's probably suffering the BAS syndrome [4] [4] HI SHERRY!!! ;o) The true test of character is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do. -John Holt -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know mutter Ramming speed gentlemen, and load the fish taco torpedoes. [1] [1] Of course firing them AWAY from Andy's general direction inflicting much pain on him. [2] [2] You know, I think I'll go have Rubio's at Qualcomm Stadium later today [3] [3] Holiday Bowl today you know. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Ah yes. I remember them on the Ed Sullivan Show. The Singing Pilgrims. -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know It's something the Pilgrims singed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What is a Compaq? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know hold on let me check -Original Message- From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What does the network admin say? Seriously what does it say in the Compaq array config util? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: anyone know I have 4 18.2 gig scsi drives and one of the lights on the 4th drive is not lit up and the server is a compaq prol ml370. Does this mean the hard drive failed. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis, Suhler Associates, Inc. by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: anyone know
Well, Ellensburg is in the mountains. Of course you'll freeze your hiney off! ;o) I do like Major Applewhite as well though, too bad he's playin the Dawgs today... ;o) D There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know I'm rootin' for the Longhorns myself, not that I really care being a native So Cal boy. I just like Major and Texas in general. I also spent one year in Washington (Ellensburg) and froze my ass off the whole time so I generally have negative memories. But the tickets, food, and beer are all free [1]. [1] I'm just a vendor 'ho -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Go Huskies!! -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Yep, and the Huskies are going to whoop on the Longhorn's! [1] ;o) D [1] Or so I hope they do...[2] [2] Dr. Dogg, where are you? [3] [3] He's probably suffering the BAS syndrome [4] [4] HI SHERRY!!! ;o) The true test of character is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do. -John Holt -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know mutter Ramming speed gentlemen, and load the fish taco torpedoes. [1] [1] Of course firing them AWAY from Andy's general direction inflicting much pain on him. [2] [2] You know, I think I'll go have Rubio's at Qualcomm Stadium later today [3] [3] Holiday Bowl today you know. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Ah yes. I remember them on the Ed Sullivan Show. The Singing Pilgrims. -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know It's something the Pilgrims singed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What is a Compaq? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know hold on let me check -Original Message- From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What does the network admin say? Seriously what does it say in the Compaq array config util? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: anyone know I have 4 18.2 gig scsi drives and one of the lights on the 4th drive is not lit up and the server is a compaq prol ml370. Does this mean the hard drive failed. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use
RE: anyone know
As a side note, I'm fixin to move to NC which will be considerably warmer though. ;o) D There is nothing to fear but fear itself. -Franklin D. Roosevelt -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Well, Ellensburg is in the mountains. Of course you'll freeze your hiney off! ;o) I do like Major Applewhite as well though, too bad he's playin the Dawgs today... ;o) D There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know I'm rootin' for the Longhorns myself, not that I really care being a native So Cal boy. I just like Major and Texas in general. I also spent one year in Washington (Ellensburg) and froze my ass off the whole time so I generally have negative memories. But the tickets, food, and beer are all free [1]. [1] I'm just a vendor 'ho -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Go Huskies!! -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Yep, and the Huskies are going to whoop on the Longhorn's! [1] ;o) D [1] Or so I hope they do...[2] [2] Dr. Dogg, where are you? [3] [3] He's probably suffering the BAS syndrome [4] [4] HI SHERRY!!! ;o) The true test of character is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do. -John Holt -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know mutter Ramming speed gentlemen, and load the fish taco torpedoes. [1] [1] Of course firing them AWAY from Andy's general direction inflicting much pain on him. [2] [2] You know, I think I'll go have Rubio's at Qualcomm Stadium later today [3] [3] Holiday Bowl today you know. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know Ah yes. I remember them on the Ed Sullivan Show. The Singing Pilgrims. -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know It's something the Pilgrims singed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What is a Compaq? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know hold on let me check -Original Message- From: Monteleone-Haught Matt - Millville [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: anyone know What does the network admin say? Seriously what does it say in the Compaq array config util? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: anyone know I have 4 18.2 gig scsi drives and one of the lights on the 4th drive is not lit up and the server is a compaq prol ml370. Does this mean the hard drive failed. Thanks _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com
RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5
Sorry bud, but you're likely to make Martin mad since it's his list. Though everyone's should look about the same with varying differences here and there. D Saving the world from Brick Level Backups and PST's - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I am using that, and got file blocking really tricked out with Don Ely's list of attachments to block! Thanks for everyone's input. I will try to talk then into keeping scanmail, and using NAV for servers and clients as a compromise. If they don't go for it, I will hope for a trouble free system like Tom and James have(but will keep Scanmail handy just incase) Thanks! Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Using AVAPI and File Blocking? If not, you should be. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I have version 3.52 with 5.5 sp4 on a Win2k Advanced server SP2. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Ron, what version of Scanmail are you running and what SP is your Exch server on? -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I feel the same way. I really researched for the best solution back then, and scanmail it has proven to be great...no crashed servers, no bluescreens etc. We did have a few outbreaks, but that was I think due to scanmail being on a P-133 and not being able to keep up with the influx. IF I can build a strong enough case against NAV for scanning...and just do the server/client side solution only, that would be great. I almost want to install it, and have things crash for them not asking me about this...but IM the one that has to recover the thing! :( Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Going from Scanmail to NAV is like going from Prime Rib to ground round Your company will be very sorry it made this move. Since you already have Scanmail, there is no reason to dump it. I would SERIOUSLY put my foot down on this and fight it all the way to the top. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Hi Folks, I just found out we are going with The Norton Solution for our company anti-virus protection. This is fine for server and client, but I was also told we would be using NAV's solution for Exchange. (Groupware I think). Since I was not involved in this decision, but was the sole decision maker when I chose Scanmail...im not too happy. But...I turn to y'all again, as I did a few years ago for info on the best AV solution. This time I'm asking what kind of problems will I see with this new NAV scan engine that was chosen for MY Email servers? Is the NAV a solid, non-flaky product for Exchange? I couldn't really find anything major from the net..but y'all would know best. Thanks! Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange
RE: Client Connectivity
U... You're trying to access your exchange server from the internet You DO realize how unsecure that is right??? Why would you even attempt such a thing with VPN and OWA in place D Success usually comes to those who are too busy to be looking for it. -Henry David Thoreau -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Client Connectivity I recently upgraded our Exchange 5.5 standard server from IE 4.01 to 5.5 sp2 and got up to date on patches. I am not sure this is the cause, but now internally clients connect fine (including the VPN), owa works fine. However, when connecting over the internet, I get an error Unable to open your default email folders. The Microsoft Exchange Server computer is not available. Either there are network problems or the Microsoft Exchange Server is down for maintenance I can ping it. The Firewall is now wide open, allowing any. I'm at my wits end _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
How many times are you going to send this Changing the subject line will not garner different responses... D Hazards: There is an Island of Opportunity in the middle of every difficulty, miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed. - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Client Access I recently upgraded our Exchange 5.5 standard server from IE 4.01 to 5.5 sp2 and got up to date on patches. I am not sure this is the cause, but now internally clients connect fine (including the VPN), owa works fine. However, when connecting over the internet, I get an error Unable to open your default email folders. The Microsoft Exchange Server computer is not available. Either there are network problems or the Microsoft Exchange Server is down for maintenance I can ping it. The Firewall is now wide open, allowing any. I'm at my wits end -- __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access Problem
For the love of god Stop sending the same friggin message with a different subject! D Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. -Abraham Lincoln -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Client Access Problem I recently upgraded our Exchange 5.5 server from IE 3.01 to 5.5 Sp2. I don't really understand this but clients are able to connect internally (including VPN) and through OWA. However when I try to connect through the internet, it is failing with Unable to open your default email folders. The microsoft Exchange server is unavailable. Network problems blah blah blah. The firewall is currently open to any (wide open). and when I check the syslog connections are being established. I'm at my wits _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5
We ain't huggin! ;o) How about a secret handshake or something? D Incompetence: When you Earnestly Believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Id give you a big hug if it wouldn't be all awkward, then would have to punch each other to maintain a manly appearance. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Sorry bud, but you're likely to make Martin mad since it's his list. Though everyone's should look about the same with varying differences here and there. D Saving the world from Brick Level Backups and PST's - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I am using that, and got file blocking really tricked out with Don Ely's list of attachments to block! Thanks for everyone's input. I will try to talk then into keeping scanmail, and using NAV for servers and clients as a compromise. If they don't go for it, I will hope for a trouble free system like Tom and James have(but will keep Scanmail handy just incase) Thanks! Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Using AVAPI and File Blocking? If not, you should be. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I have version 3.52 with 5.5 sp4 on a Win2k Advanced server SP2. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Ron, what version of Scanmail are you running and what SP is your Exch server on? -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I feel the same way. I really researched for the best solution back then, and scanmail it has proven to be great...no crashed servers, no bluescreens etc. We did have a few outbreaks, but that was I think due to scanmail being on a P-133 and not being able to keep up with the influx. IF I can build a strong enough case against NAV for scanning...and just do the server/client side solution only, that would be great. I almost want to install it, and have things crash for them not asking me about this...but IM the one that has to recover the thing! :( Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Going from Scanmail to NAV is like going from Prime Rib to ground round Your company will be very sorry it made this move. Since you already have Scanmail, there is no reason to dump it. I would SERIOUSLY put my foot down on this and fight it all the way to the top. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Hi Folks, I just found out we are going with The Norton Solution for our company anti-virus protection. This is fine for server and client, but I was also told we would be using NAV's solution for Exchange. (Groupware I think). Since I was not involved in this decision, but was the sole decision maker when I chose Scanmail...im not too happy. But...I turn to y'all again, as I did a few years ago for info on the best AV solution. This time I'm asking what kind of problems will I see with this new NAV scan engine that was chosen for MY Email servers? Is the NAV a solid, non-flaky product for Exchange? I couldn't really find anything major from the net..but y'all would know best. Thanks! Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: Restoration Solutions?
You backup your server using an AV solution??? That seems strange... Not to mention, impossible. Now, if you're using ArcCrapIt, you're still in deep doodoo. It's a widely known fact that while ArcCrapIt may back up your server, it is very unlikely that it will restore in the event of a disaster such as yours. Additionally, do you not perform test restores? Might I ask why if your answer is no? D If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be meetings. -- Dave Barry -Original Message- From: Robert V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Restoration Solutions? Hi, Running Exchange 5.5 SP3 on NT server. We backup the server nightly using client agent from InnoculateIT. Unfortunately one of our users has misplaced or lost a large amount of mail and it is nowhere to be found. We are curious what restoration options are available with Exchange as we have not done this previously. Short of setting up another Exchange server and restoring the databases, is there any way quickly to access the backed up mail? Otherwise, what suggestions does the group have for making this restoration easier in the future? Thanks much, Robert VadeBonCoeur [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Restoration Solutions?
NT Backup works great if you need something simple. As far as restoration procedures, I would suggest you read the DR whitepapers on the MS Site. I would also suggest a spare server, running exchange to do the test restores on. At a minimum, test restores should be done every 90 days. That way, you keep up on your procedures, increase your skill level, and verify that you actually have good backups. D Idiocy: Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Robert V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Restoration Solutions? Alright, so what is the good backup solution for the Exchange databases? We have not performed test restores to date. We like to make sure everything goes to hell if the server crashes - okay, well not really. Do you have any recommendations for restore procedures (testing purposes?). Thanks, Robert You backup your server using an AV solution??? That seems strange... Not to mention, impossible. Now, if you're using ArcCrapIt, you're still in deep doodoo. It's a widely known fact that while ArcCrapIt may back up your server, it is very unlikely that it will restore in the event of a disaster such as yours. Additionally, do you not perform test restores? Might I ask why if your answer is no? D If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be meetings. -- Dave Barry -Original Message- From: Robert V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Restoration Solutions? Hi, Running Exchange 5.5 SP3 on NT server. We backup the server nightly using client agent from InnoculateIT. Unfortunately one of our users has misplaced or lost a large amount of mail and it is nowhere to be found. We are curious what restoration options are available with Exchange as we have not done this previously. Short of setting up another Exchange server and restoring the databases, is there any way quickly to access the backed up mail? Otherwise, what suggestions does the group have for making this restoration easier in the future? Thanks much, Robert VadeBonCoeur [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5
::High Five Back at ya:: D Burnout: Attitudes are contagious, mine might kill you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 ::High Five:: -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 We ain't huggin! ;o) How about a secret handshake or something? D Incompetence: When you Earnestly Believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Id give you a big hug if it wouldn't be all awkward, then would have to punch each other to maintain a manly appearance. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Sorry bud, but you're likely to make Martin mad since it's his list. Though everyone's should look about the same with varying differences here and there. D Saving the world from Brick Level Backups and PST's - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I am using that, and got file blocking really tricked out with Don Ely's list of attachments to block! Thanks for everyone's input. I will try to talk then into keeping scanmail, and using NAV for servers and clients as a compromise. If they don't go for it, I will hope for a trouble free system like Tom and James have(but will keep Scanmail handy just incase) Thanks! Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Using AVAPI and File Blocking? If not, you should be. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I have version 3.52 with 5.5 sp4 on a Win2k Advanced server SP2. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Ron, what version of Scanmail are you running and what SP is your Exch server on? -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I feel the same way. I really researched for the best solution back then, and scanmail it has proven to be great...no crashed servers, no bluescreens etc. We did have a few outbreaks, but that was I think due to scanmail being on a P-133 and not being able to keep up with the influx. IF I can build a strong enough case against NAV for scanning...and just do the server/client side solution only, that would be great. I almost want to install it, and have things crash for them not asking me about this...but IM the one that has to recover the thing! :( Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Going from Scanmail to NAV is like going from Prime Rib to ground round Your company will be very sorry it made this move. Since you already have Scanmail, there is no reason to dump it. I would SERIOUSLY put my foot down on this and fight it all the way to the top. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Hi Folks, I just found out we are going with The Norton Solution for our company anti-virus protection. This is fine for server and client, but I was also told we would be using NAV's solution for Exchange. (Groupware I think). Since I was not involved in this decision, but was the sole decision maker when I chose Scanmail...im not too happy. But...I turn to y'all again, as I did a few years ago for info on the best AV solution. This time I'm asking what kind of problems will I see with this new NAV scan engine that was chosen for MY Email servers? Is the NAV a solid, non-flaky product for Exchange? I couldn't really find anything major from the net..but y'all would know best. Thanks! Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe
RE: Client Access Problem
I'm about to test his Exchange Client Connectivity problem myself... Someone is not likely to enjoy the results... ;o) D The secret to success is - find out where the people are going and get there first. (Mark Twain) -Original Message- From: Chinnery Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Problem LOL After seeing the fourth post, I just knew steam was starting to come out of your ears! Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Problem For the love of god Stop sending the same friggin message with a different subject! D Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. -Abraham Lincoln -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Client Access Problem I recently upgraded our Exchange 5.5 server from IE 3.01 to 5.5 Sp2. I don't really understand this but clients are able to connect internally (including VPN) and through OWA. However when I try to connect through the internet, it is failing with Unable to open your default email folders. The microsoft Exchange server is unavailable. Network problems blah blah blah. The firewall is currently open to any (wide open). and when I check the syslog connections are being established. I'm at my wits _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
So you have a PIX in front of your Exchange server??? When was this put in place? D Incompetence: When you Earnestly Believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Don, sorry about the multiples. I didn't think they were getting posted. So I tried an number of different ways. I actually was going to email just you and ask if this list was updated real time. I know it is unsecure, but that is really not my choice, I have just really locked this machine down and it hasn't been patched or upgraded for over a year, our old senior network admin wasn't a slack but he was really cautious about patches and security wasn't a company priority. I am moving towards further securing the server, but that doesn't change the connectivity issue. This really shouldn't matter. I thought at first it was a dns problem and added more dns servers. Opened the pix wide open, when I watch the syslog, I see all the sessions establishing and they stay established, but I still get that error. I can ping by ip or hostname, I can tracert to it without problem. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
Well, having some familiarity with the PIX, you'd have to open around 64000 ports up to access Exchange from the internet. Unless you have hacked the registry of the Exchange server to statically assign the ports that Exchange uses for communications. However, my question still stands... If you have OWA and a VPN solution in place, WHY are you trying to access the server off of the internet? What purpose are you serving here? I'm just trying to get an understanding of what you're attempting to accomplish. D Incompetence: When you Earnestly Believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access The pix has been in place around a year. I wasn't kidding when I said I was going to email you and ask, so I wasn't being a smart A**. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
Since those static mappings are done in the registry, what upgrade could have changed that? D Saving the world from Brick Level Backups and PST's - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access The reason you can no longer do this is because you have not set your static RPC ports for the exchange server. This must have been done on the older version and now that you have upgraded you will have to re-do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Client Access I recently upgraded our Exchange 5.5 standard server from IE 4.01 to 5.5 sp2 and got up to date on patches. I am not sure this is the cause, but now internally clients connect fine (including the VPN), owa works fine. However, when connecting over the internet, I get an error Unable to open your default email folders. The Microsoft Exchange Server computer is not available. Either there are network problems or the Microsoft Exchange Server is down for maintenance I can ping it. The Firewall is now wide open, allowing any. I'm at my wits end -- __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
Oddly enough, he says they DO have a VPN solution in place... D A booming voice says, Wrong, cretin!, and you notice that you have turned into a pile of dust. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access I agree with this. This is a bad idea to open up this communication via the internet. A better solution would be to implement a VPN solution using PPTP directly to the server or another RAS Server. I'm not aware of any problems running RAS on the Exchange box but I suppose it would depend on how the Exch box is configured. If the system has one network card and points directly to the PIX as it's default gateway you should be fine. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Well, having some familiarity with the PIX, you'd have to open around 64000 ports up to access Exchange from the internet. Unless you have hacked the registry of the Exchange server to statically assign the ports that Exchange uses for communications. However, my question still stands... If you have OWA and a VPN solution in place, WHY are you trying to access the server off of the internet? What purpose are you serving here? I'm just trying to get an understanding of what you're attempting to accomplish. D Incompetence: When you Earnestly Believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access The pix has been in place around a year. I wasn't kidding when I said I was going to email you and ask, so I wasn't being a smart A**. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
I'm getting more and more confused with every post... ;o) D To measure the man, measure his heart. -Malcolm Stevenson Forbes -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access I guess I'm confused. After re-reading the original post I'm not sure what was actually upgraded. I see Exch 5.5 then IE 4.01. Did you upgrade Internet Explorer Browser? -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Since those static mappings are done in the registry, what upgrade could have changed that? D Saving the world from Brick Level Backups and PST's - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access The reason you can no longer do this is because you have not set your static RPC ports for the exchange server. This must have been done on the older version and now that you have upgraded you will have to re-do it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Client Access I recently upgraded our Exchange 5.5 standard server from IE 4.01 to 5.5 sp2 and got up to date on patches. I am not sure this is the cause, but now internally clients connect fine (including the VPN), owa works fine. However, when connecting over the internet, I get an error Unable to open your default email folders. The Microsoft Exchange Server computer is not available. Either there are network problems or the Microsoft Exchange Server is down for maintenance I can ping it. The Firewall is now wide open, allowing any. I'm at my wits end -- __ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
Oh, there you go. SP4 would have changed things back the WAY they SHOULD be. D Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk? -Anon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access There's you answer. I think the upgrade to 5.5 SP4 would have reset the static RPC ports defined previously. You can set this back...but, I would not recommend doing so. Your best bet is to implement a VPN solution if users wish to access the Exchange Server via the Internet using a Mapi based client. I believe the FAQ has some information on doing this. -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Sorry for not being clear, upgraded to 5.5 sp4 patched IIS updated ie to 5.5 sp2 and security patches This is kind of a weird situation, security was not a concern of this company until around the last six months. I do want to close the machine off from the internet as much as possible, but I want to know why this isn't working. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Disaster recovery planning for the new year.
I did lot's of testing and DR's for clients this year... I plan on having to do more next year and the years to come. :o) D A TV can insult your intelligence, but nothing rubs it in like a computer. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Disaster recovery planning for the new year. How many of you did a test restore of your Exchange environment this year? [1] Frightfully few I'm afraid. For those who know they didn't test as much as they should, perhaps a new year resolution (and plan to achieve same) is in order. Join me now in scheduling your disaster recovery testing for the new year. Here are the dates I'll be testing my recovery scenarios [3]. Friday, March 29 Friday, May 31 Friday, July 26 Friday, October 25 Reminders set a week in advance. Time blocked out to allow sufficient time to complete the task. First test scheduled late enough in the new year to allow for acquisition of additional hardware and development of test plan if needed. Schedule the time now or you'll never find the time. As an Exchange sage once noted, the wrong time to be practicing your disaster recovery plan is in the middle of a disaster. Do yourself, your employer and the rest of the community a favor and schedule your practice sessions now. [1] Rhetorical question. [2] [2] Definition for Amit Hanji: rhetorical question n. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect. [3] In my lab anyway. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Disaster recovery planning for the new year.
October 25th would be a bad day for me as well. That's my Birthday, not to mention, it's a Friday. ;o) D Burnout: Attitudes are contagious, mine might kill you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Disaster recovery planning for the new year. May 31st isn't a good day for me... -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Disaster recovery planning for the new year. How many of you did a test restore of your Exchange environment this year? [1] Frightfully few I'm afraid. For those who know they didn't test as much as they should, perhaps a new year resolution (and plan to achieve same) is in order. Join me now in scheduling your disaster recovery testing for the new year. Here are the dates I'll be testing my recovery scenarios [3]. Friday, March 29 Friday, May 31 Friday, July 26 Friday, October 25 Reminders set a week in advance. Time blocked out to allow sufficient time to complete the task. First test scheduled late enough in the new year to allow for acquisition of additional hardware and development of test plan if needed. Schedule the time now or you'll never find the time. As an Exchange sage once noted, the wrong time to be practicing your disaster recovery plan is in the middle of a disaster. Do yourself, your employer and the rest of the community a favor and schedule your practice sessions now. [1] Rhetorical question. [2] [2] Definition for Amit Hanji: rhetorical question n. A question to which no answer is expected, often used for rhetorical effect. [3] In my lab anyway. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
That's what I originally thought. That's something hard coded into the registry and I don't know of too many apps that overwrite manual changes to the registry... D Overconfidence: Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you can survive the odds beating you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access I've done plenty of SP upgrades on Exchange and can unequivicably state that it does NOT remove the static port mappings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Oh, there you go. SP4 would have changed things back the WAY they SHOULD be. D Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk? -Anon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access There's you answer. I think the upgrade to 5.5 SP4 would have reset the static RPC ports defined previously. You can set this back...but, I would not recommend doing so. Your best bet is to implement a VPN solution if users wish to access the Exchange Server via the Internet using a Mapi based client. I believe the FAQ has some information on doing this. -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Sorry for not being clear, upgraded to 5.5 sp4 patched IIS updated ie to 5.5 sp2 and security patches This is kind of a weird situation, security was not a concern of this company until around the last six months. I do want to close the machine off from the internet as much as possible, but I want to know why this isn't working. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Client Access
Where did you see that he upgraded from 5.0 to 5.5 SP4?I don't recall that. Of course, his lack of detail is making this so much harder to troubleshoot... ;o) D Delusions: There is no joy greater than soaring high on the wings of your dreams, except maybe the joy of watching a dreamer who has nowhere to land but in the ocean of reality. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Maybe so.. But what if you upgrade from 5.0 to 5.5 SP4? Which...by the way, is what seems to be the case here but that part was left out. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access That's what I originally thought. That's something hard coded into the registry and I don't know of too many apps that overwrite manual changes to the registry... D Overconfidence: Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you can survive the odds beating you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access I've done plenty of SP upgrades on Exchange and can unequivicably state that it does NOT remove the static port mappings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Oh, there you go. SP4 would have changed things back the WAY they SHOULD be. D Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disk? -Anon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access There's you answer. I think the upgrade to 5.5 SP4 would have reset the static RPC ports defined previously. You can set this back...but, I would not recommend doing so. Your best bet is to implement a VPN solution if users wish to access the Exchange Server via the Internet using a Mapi based client. I believe the FAQ has some information on doing this. -Original Message- From: Ed Premus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Client Access Sorry for not being clear, upgraded to 5.5 sp4 patched IIS updated ie to 5.5 sp2 and security patches This is kind of a weird situation, security was not a concern of this company until around the last six months. I do want to close the machine off from the internet as much as possible, but I want to know why this isn't working. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe
RE: Top Ten Statements or Phrases - Year 2001
That one sounds familiar!! ;o) D If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing. -Anon -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Top Ten Statements or Phrases - Year 2001 Fix your Broke @ss Sh!t -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Top Ten Statements or Phrases - Year 2001 Dear DL Members, What were the top ten posts, statements, or phrases of Year 2001? Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Top Ten Statements or Phrases - Year 2001
BSD Skunks the Penguin ;o) D In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. -Desiderius Erasmus -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Top Ten Statements or Phrases - Year 2001 Dear DL Members, What were the top ten posts, statements, or phrases of Year 2001? Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange
Do you ever read any whitepapers or manuals? This is pretty friggin self explanatory sh!t. D The road to a friend's house is never long. -Danish proverb -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Hello All, I have backup exec 8.5 with exchange client installed on a NT Server SP6. I would like to know if I have to back up the exchange directories located under the c drive. Because I have exchange agent installed and I tell it to back it up Full I should be backing these directories up allready right. So if I go under selections can I uncheck the exchsrvr diectory and still backup this IS. Thanks Rich _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange
Gee, ever been to www.microsoft.com/exchange ? If a trainstation is where the train stops, what's a workstation...? -Anon -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Don where all the white papers at!! -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 11:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange I dont have a big enough tape drive to do a full back this suxs -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Personally I backup EVERYTHING on the Exch server -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Hello All, I have backup exec 8.5 with exchange client installed on a NT Server SP6. I would like to know if I have to back up the exchange directories located under the c drive. Because I have exchange agent installed and I tell it to back it up Full I should be backing these directories up allready right. So if I go under selections can I uncheck the exchsrvr diectory and still backup this IS. Thanks Rich _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange
Tis not necessary. You should backup the priv, pub, and log files. Flush the logs when complete preferably with Circular logging disabled. D Get all over this like a donkey on a waffle. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Personally I backup EVERYTHING on the Exch server -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Hello All, I have backup exec 8.5 with exchange client installed on a NT Server SP6. I would like to know if I have to back up the exchange directories located under the c drive. Because I have exchange agent installed and I tell it to back it up Full I should be backing these directories up allready right. So if I go under selections can I uncheck the exchsrvr diectory and still backup this IS. Thanks Rich _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange
Why would you want to? D Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering. -Tom Stoppard -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Use an open file manager:) -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Tis not necessary. You should backup the priv, pub, and log files. Flush the logs when complete preferably with Circular logging disabled. D Get all over this like a donkey on a waffle. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Personally I backup EVERYTHING on the Exch server -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Hello All, I have backup exec 8.5 with exchange client installed on a NT Server SP6. I would like to know if I have to back up the exchange directories located under the c drive. Because I have exchange agent installed and I tell it to back it up Full I should be backing these directories up allready right. So if I go under selections can I uncheck the exchsrvr diectory and still backup this IS. Thanks Rich _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange
Uh huh... Me thinks that theory is not AB approved. ;o) D I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. -Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Why not??? :) Actually if it worked right it would be cool because it would be like having an offline backup everynight. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Why would you want to? D Revolution is a trivial shift in the emphasis of suffering. -Tom Stoppard -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Use an open file manager:) -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Tis not necessary. You should backup the priv, pub, and log files. Flush the logs when complete preferably with Circular logging disabled. D Get all over this like a donkey on a waffle. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Personally I backup EVERYTHING on the Exch server -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 8:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Backup exec 8.5 for exchange Hello All, I have backup exec 8.5 with exchange client installed on a NT Server SP6. I would like to know if I have to back up the exchange directories located under the c drive. Because I have exchange agent installed and I tell it to back it up Full I should be backing these directories up allready right. So if I go under selections can I uncheck the exchsrvr diectory and still backup this IS. Thanks Rich _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange and Intranet
www.cdolive.com Oh, and what version of Exchange are we talking about here? D When you choose your friends, don't be short-changed by choosing personality over character. -W. Somerset Maugham -Original Message- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange and Intranet I'm helping to build the intranet for our company and I'm looking to have the personnel Data (Phone Numbers, Direct Reports, Etc..) pulled from Exchange. Does anyone have any recommendations or examples they may be able to forward on? Joshua Morgan PROFITLAB Network Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~ One is glad to be of service ---Robin Williams ( Millennium Man)--- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange and Intranet
Then check out CDOLive... Otherwise, you may want to wait until to finish your AD upgrade, upgrade to E2K and then use the AD features Kevin speaks of. D When you choose your friends, don't be short-changed by choosing personality over character. -W. Somerset Maugham -Original Message- From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and Intranet 5.5 for now I'm in the middle of moving to AD PROFITLAB Network Engineer PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 5:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange and Intranet 5.5 or 2k: with 2kl that is all built into AD for you. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, CKWSE, CKST -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Morgan, Joshua Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 1:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange and Intranet I'm helping to build the intranet for our company and I'm looking to have the personnel Data (Phone Numbers, Direct Reports, Etc..) pulled from Exchange. Does anyone have any recommendations or examples they may be able to forward on? Joshua Morgan PROFITLAB Network Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~ One is glad to be of service ---Robin Williams ( Millennium Man)--- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Information Store Problems???
I would still run ISINTEG and see if it finds any problems. Don't have it do any fixes, just run it and see what the IS looks like. D BSD Skunks the Penguin - Roger Seielstad -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Information Store Problems??? Don, I did exactly that, and got seven hits on my query. However, like I said at the bottom of my message, none of them fit the description of my error message. I have checked the disk space on the server like Q196217 suggested, but it's fine. I also checked to make sure that I hadn't turned up the logging on something to maximum by accident and forgotten about it. Jim B. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Information Store Problems??? Go here http://search.support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx and query on Event ID 1025. Looks like you need to run ISINTEG... D Hazards: There is an Island of Opportunity in the middle of every difficulty, miss that, though, and you're pretty much doomed. - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Information Store Problems??? Sorry...forgot to change the subject before sending last time...my apologies. -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 2:55 PM To: 'Exchange Discussions' Subject: RE: Exchange and Intranet Gentlemen Ladies: Setup: One IMS, One Bridgehead, Three mailbox servers, One OWA Server. All servers are Windows 2000 Sp2. IMS, mailbox servers and bridgehead are Exchange 5.5 SP4+3, OWA is Exchange 5.5 SP4+2. Problem: I think I have my first major problem with the Event Store. Got the following messages in my Event Log: Event Type: Warning Event Source: MSExchangeIS Private Event Category: General Event ID: 1025 Date: 12/27/2001 Time: 2:06:23 PM User: N/A Computer: ERCEX06 Description: An error occurred. Function name or description of problem: EcProcessSearchMessageEvent Error: 0x8004011b Event Type: Warning Event Source: MSExchangeIS Private Event Category: General Event ID: 1025 Date: 12/27/2001 Time: 2:06:23 PM User: N/A Computer: ERCEX06 Description: An error occurred. Function name or description of problem: EcCreateLink Error: 0x8004011b I have searched the MS Exchange KB, but come up blank. Everything references EcGenerate, EcGet or EcDo functions. Nothing matches exactly. I figured I would run the isinteg.exe with the following switches: ISInteg -pri -fix -test alltests Suggestions? Jim Blunt Network / E-mail Admin Network / Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AV! a full time job?
You take on every role yourself... YOU ROCK!! :o) D Windows 95 and Windows 98, the only operating systems that has the year-2000 bug built into the name. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: AV! a full time job? No I don't think it needs to be a full time job, but it is defiantly one that somebody has to take full responsibility for and be the one that answers to problems. I personally take that role myself. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: AV! a full time job? Just curious what some of the Exchange Admins think. Would you consider Antivirus a full time job? I speak for both email and network/desktop. Around here it isn't, although we wish it was cause it seems to be getting neglected. We are around 1300 users right now. e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AV! a full time job?
I've never came so many... Oh forget it! ;o) D The secret to success is - find out where the people are going and get there first. (Mark Twain) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: AV! a full time job? You're the best!! -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: AV! a full time job? You take on every role yourself... YOU ROCK!! :o) D Windows 95 and Windows 98, the only operating systems that has the year-2000 bug built into the name. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: AV! a full time job? No I don't think it needs to be a full time job, but it is defiantly one that somebody has to take full responsibility for and be the one that answers to problems. I personally take that role myself. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: AV! a full time job? Just curious what some of the Exchange Admins think. Would you consider Antivirus a full time job? I speak for both email and network/desktop. Around here it isn't, although we wish it was cause it seems to be getting neglected. We are around 1300 users right now. e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Recovering Deleted Items
Here you go... Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Exchange\Client\Options] DumpsterAlwaysOn=dword:0001 http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q178/6/30.ASP D The road to a friend's house is never long. -Danish proverb -Original Message- From: Jonathan Beeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 7:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Recovering Deleted Items I recently rebuilt my PC and I had a utility (or registry fix, or something) that enabled me to recover deleted items from all folders, not just the deleted items folder. For instance, if a user presses (shift+delete) on an item in their inbox, I can still recover it. Does anyone know how to configure this feature? Thanks in advance _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Funny, I've been working in this field for 6 years and M$ has never meant Microsoft as far as I can remember. I find it rather insulting that you do! D A booming voice says, Wrong, cretin!, and you notice that you have turned into a pile of dust. -Original Message- From: steven parks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Look at the context of the usage and use your imagination, it should be self explanatory. ( M$ = Microsoft, of course :-) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard What's with the M$ stuff??? Can you explain to us what that means? -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard We are preparing to merge with another firm that is also using Exchange v5.5. We are all W2K SP2 with Exchange v5.5 SP4, and they are all NT6 SP6 with Exchange v5.5 SP4. Once we have joined NT domains we will need a tool to combine the two Exchange systems, and the Move Server Wizard looks like just that tool. We also have the option to ExMerge all data out to PSTs and join the two systems that way, but assuming the wizard works correctly it seems preferable. Has anyone had any experiences with this - good or bad? Any comments from people who have been through a similar scenario that may have solved the issue differently would also be appreciated. Keith Beahm Network Engineer Stinson Mag Fizzell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
No, you didn't hurt anyone's feelings, but you DID lessen your chances or receiving any kind of valuable assistance in the future. D Overconfidence: Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you can survive the odds beating you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: steven parks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard AWWW, did I hurt someone's feelings, what a shame. What in the world is AB approval? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard As do I. I would like to remind everyone that we make a pretty good living off of all these products that Microsoft supplies. Thanks to them I can put food on the table and roof over my families head. You will not be receiving AB Approval either. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Funny, I've been working in this field for 6 years and M$ has never meant Microsoft as far as I can remember. I find it rather insulting that you do! D A booming voice says, Wrong, cretin!, and you notice that you have turned into a pile of dust. -Original Message- From: steven parks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Look at the context of the usage and use your imagination, it should be self explanatory. ( M$ = Microsoft, of course :-) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard What's with the M$ stuff??? Can you explain to us what that means? -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard We are preparing to merge with another firm that is also using Exchange v5.5. We are all W2K SP2 with Exchange v5.5 SP4, and they are all NT6 SP6 with Exchange v5.5 SP4. Once we have joined NT domains we will need a tool to combine the two Exchange systems, and the Move Server Wizard looks like just that tool. We also have the option to ExMerge all data out to PSTs and join the two systems that way, but assuming the wizard works correctly it seems preferable. Has anyone had any experiences with this - good or bad? Any comments from people who have been through a similar scenario that may have solved the issue differently would also be appreciated. Keith Beahm Network Engineer Stinson Mag Fizzell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
snickering Wha? Where? Who? Oh, nevermind... D The hardest thing in life is to know which bridge to cross and which to burn. -David Russell -Original Message- From: Barry Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I think the secret cabal meeting should be moved up to tonight so that this thread can be discussed... Never mind, there is no secret cabal. Please disregard. Barry - MOS -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard No, you didn't hurt anyone's feelings, but you DID lessen your chances or receiving any kind of valuable assistance in the future. D Overconfidence: Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you can survive the odds beating you. - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: steven parks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard AWWW, did I hurt someone's feelings, what a shame. What in the world is AB approval? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard As do I. I would like to remind everyone that we make a pretty good living off of all these products that Microsoft supplies. Thanks to them I can put food on the table and roof over my families head. You will not be receiving AB Approval either. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Funny, I've been working in this field for 6 years and M$ has never meant Microsoft as far as I can remember. I find it rather insulting that you do! D A booming voice says, Wrong, cretin!, and you notice that you have turned into a pile of dust. -Original Message- From: steven parks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Look at the context of the usage and use your imagination, it should be self explanatory. ( M$ = Microsoft, of course :-) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard What's with the M$ stuff??? Can you explain to us what that means? -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 8:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard We are preparing to merge with another firm that is also using Exchange v5.5. We are all W2K SP2 with Exchange v5.5 SP4, and they are all NT6 SP6 with Exchange v5.5 SP4. Once we have joined NT domains we will need a tool to combine the two Exchange systems, and the Move Server Wizard looks like just that tool. We also have the option to ExMerge all data out to PSTs and join the two systems that way, but assuming the wizard works correctly it seems preferable. Has anyone had any experiences with this - good or bad? Any comments from people who have been through a similar scenario that may have solved the issue differently would also be appreciated. Keith Beahm Network Engineer Stinson Mag Fizzell [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Exmerge is on the W2K CD??? Off to go check that out... D There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but only one view. -Harry Millner -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Ahhh... I thought that might be the case. ;o) D I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. -Nathan Hale -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I meant to say the Exchange CD rom under support\utils It will baulk about dlls but just add a path statement pointing to your exchsrvr\bin directory Minor faux paus smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Exmerge is on the W2K CD??? Off to go check that out... D There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but only one view. -Harry Millner -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Alex, I see that you have an MS.com email addy so I for some reason will assume you work there. Where are you getting the bright idea that exmerge is NOT supported by MS or even PSS for that matter? Not that I ever call on you guys, but I would say that exmerge has been supported for longer than you been employed there. D The secret to success is to know something nobody else knows. -Aristotle Onassis -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard The fact that it is on the CD does not make it fully supported. -aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Of course, you must understand that most of us realize that the SIS is broke when exmerge is run, but not supported by MS??? Doubt it... D A TV can insult your intelligence, but nothing rubs it in like a computer. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Alex, I see that you have an MS.com email addy so I for some reason will assume you work there. Where are you getting the bright idea that exmerge is NOT supported by MS or even PSS for that matter? Not that I ever call on you guys, but I would say that exmerge has been supported for longer than you been employed there. D The secret to success is to know something nobody else knows. -Aristotle Onassis -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard The fact that it is on the CD does not make it fully supported. -aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Strange, I've never seen Exmerge crash my server, but I suppose there is a possibility. Then again, wouldn't ISScan have the same potential impact? We (the general we) run these utilities occasionally for virus outbreaks, etc... These are the supported methods to ripping stuff out of the IS during these types of outbreaks. So how may I ask do you propose admins take care of their server then? Most of us know that there are different versions of Exmerge for the different levels of Exchange, now if this utility is buggy as you say, why do we Exchange professionals out in the real world use it? Why has it been suggested we use it? Or are you quoting how MS wants it done? For those of us in the real world, there is the MS way and there is the real way. Are you telling me I've been doing it wrong for the last 6 years? At any rate, there is a risk involved any time you do anything to the exchange server databases. That's like saying that eseutil is NOT supported because it can crash the server. I'm just curious to your position on all of this. Being a part of MS, I know you can't divulge your honest opinion, but throw me a bone. I've been working with Exchange since it was born, so... I'm a bit curious. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, but you have my attention for the minute. D It's not your blue blood, your pedigree or your college degree. It's what you do with your life that counts. -Millard Fuller -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard You're missing the point. It's not FULLY supported. For example, if you run ExMerge, and it crashes your machine due to a bug, there is no guarantee that it will be fixed. See the disclaimer in \support\utils\readme.doc. Thanks, aseigler -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Alex, I see that you have an MS.com email addy so I for some reason will assume you work there. Where are you getting the bright idea that exmerge is NOT supported by MS or even PSS for that matter? Not that I ever call on you guys, but I would say that exmerge has been supported for longer than you been employed there. D The secret to success is to know something nobody else knows. -Aristotle Onassis -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard The fact that it is on the CD does not make it fully supported. -aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
I'm curious as to which part of MS you work in... The Exchange team? PSS? MCS? D Press any key to continue or any other key to quit... -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Certainly everyone is entitled to their viewpoint. I was simply stating the fact that from my experience, I prefer Move Server over ExMerge, then I listed a few reasons, one of them being that Move Server is fully supported, while ExMerge is not. To some customers, that reason alone is enough to use the tool that I prefer them using. Thanks, aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 4:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Next thing you will be telling me its under warranty product Most people on this list have been around exmerge and its various revisons and even the pst exporters pre exmerge!. As you know it was a BORK product and now has been placed on a mainstream product and in this case I think this has been a techie request and not a marketing ploy. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint so I leave it at that. smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 4:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard The fact that it is on the CD does not make it fully supported. -aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Understandable... I perform migrations both ways, it really depends on the scenario involved, but I see where you're going with this. D A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at him. -David Brink -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 1:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, let me ellaborate on this a little bit. I work in PSS, in a group close to the group that the individual who originially wrote ExMerge worked in. That individual maintained the ExMerge code for several years. That individual has now moved to MCS, and is no longer maintaining that code. I'm not saying that it's buggy. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with it. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use it. What I'm saying is that a lot of time and effort was used to delevop and test the Move Server Wizard. It is fully supported, and there are code maintainers for it. For moving servers between sites or orgs, in my opinion, Move Server is the best, hands down. I will recommend it each and every time the question is asked. Thanks, aseigler -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 4:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Strange, I've never seen Exmerge crash my server, but I suppose there is a possibility. Then again, wouldn't ISScan have the same potential impact? We (the general we) run these utilities occasionally for virus outbreaks, etc... These are the supported methods to ripping stuff out of the IS during these types of outbreaks. So how may I ask do you propose admins take care of their server then? Most of us know that there are different versions of Exmerge for the different levels of Exchange, now if this utility is buggy as you say, why do we Exchange professionals out in the real world use it? Why has it been suggested we use it? Or are you quoting how MS wants it done? For those of us in the real world, there is the MS way and there is the real way. Are you telling me I've been doing it wrong for the last 6 years? At any rate, there is a risk involved any time you do anything to the exchange server databases. That's like saying that eseutil is NOT supported because it can crash the server. I'm just curious to your position on all of this. Being a part of MS, I know you can't divulge your honest opinion, but throw me a bone. I've been working with Exchange since it was born, so... I'm a bit curious. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong, but you have my attention for the minute. D It's not your blue blood, your pedigree or your college degree. It's what you do with your life that counts. -Millard Fuller -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard You're missing the point. It's not FULLY supported. For example, if you run ExMerge, and it crashes your machine due to a bug, there is no guarantee that it will be fixed. See the disclaimer in \support\utils\readme.doc. Thanks, aseigler -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 3:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Alex, I see that you have an MS.com email addy so I for some reason will assume you work there. Where are you getting the bright idea that exmerge is NOT supported by MS or even PSS for that matter? Not that I ever call on you guys, but I would say that exmerge has been supported for longer than you been employed there. D The secret to success is to know something nobody else knows. -Aristotle Onassis -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard The fact that it is on the CD does not make it fully supported. -aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server
RE: Monitoring email
Not to mention, a half way decent firewall with logging turned on will tell you what sites the said user has been accessing. That takes the deleting of History right out of the picture. D Profanity is the one language all programmers know best. -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 6:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Yes but using the dumpsteralwayson registry change, deleted items can be recovered. Even if mail doesnt go to deleted items first. Search technet using dumpsteralwayson. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 December 2001 14:51 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email The problem there is that the persons manager would have to monitor the mail all day long as this person is fairly computer savvy, they knew how to clean up their PC so there were no traces of internet sites history. Their Inbox, sent items and deleted item were completely empty when checked last night. If a person does a Shift-Delete(perm delete) does this by-pass deleted items retention feature in Exchange? Brian -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Or you could just let management have access to the said persons mailbox. As part of there outlook profile. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 9:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email On the IMC connector, Diagnostic Logging tab, Message Archiving, or Protocol Logging turned to MAX. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. - RFC 1925 -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 8:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Where is the setting to turn this on? Brian -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Fire them You could turn on logging in the IMS and crank it up. -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Hi, Thanks for the suggestion, but short of that, what could I do first thing tomorrow morning? What kind of logging is Exchange capable of? -Original Message- From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 8:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Monitoring email Journaling. It is probably best to build a monitoring server and enable journaling on that server. Move the mailboxes in question to that server. Take a look at Q239427 Tom. -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Monitoring email I need to monitor emails for 4 people in the company. Both incoming and outgoing. We think they are giving out trade secrets. What is the best method for doing this? We are running Exchange 5.5 sp3 NT4.0 sp6 Brian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To
RE: Livevault backup software
I have... Whatcha want to know? D -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Livevault backup software Has anyone used Livevault? My company is looking at them as a potential solution for all of our backups. I was skeptical. Thanks, Ken Jasa Messaging Administrator Weber Shandwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Livevault backup software
I did, it worked. However, if you're going for a solution that expensive, you might as well look at CommVault Galaxy. It costs about the same and is more geared for Exchange. LV is certified on Exchange, but it really depends on how you intend to perform your backups. As you may or may not know, LV backs up to disk, then tape. That means you need an additional server that has at least as much disk space on it as your entire environment. I liked most of the features the product offered. Their Technical Support was great. I would advise others to purchase it, but there are other products out there like CommVault that I like better. Of course, that is more of a personal preference. D The true test of character is not how much we know how to do, but how we behave when we don't know what to do. -John Holt -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Livevault backup software Would you trust your exchange backups to it? -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 12:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Livevault backup software I have... Whatcha want to know? D -Original Message- From: Jasa, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Livevault backup software Has anyone used Livevault? My company is looking at them as a potential solution for all of our backups. I was skeptical. Thanks, Ken Jasa Messaging Administrator Weber Shandwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Disaster Server
clus*ter (klstr) n. A group of the same or similar elements gathered or occurring closely together; a bunch: She held out her hand, a small tight cluster of fingers (Anne Tyler). Linguistics. Two or more successive consonants in a word, as cl and st in the word cluster. A group of academic courses in a related area. D :o) Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -Abraham Lincoln -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Disaster Server Do you know what a cluster is? -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Disaster Server I have one exchange server in my office nt4 exchange 5.5sp4. We have two buildings across the street from each other connected by a aironet bridge. The other building doesnt have a server but we want one there as an exchange server 2000 with clustering to the other server. The old exchange server will be upgraded with exchange 2000 with windows 2000 advance server to replicate with the server across the street. With the aironet bridge are we able to cluster over this or should we use a partial T1. We want this server to be in the other building so if one building was to burn down we could pick up the in the other building on the same day and not lose any time. Any suggestions would be great thanks RT _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
