What version of Groupshield and are you using ESE scanning?
-Original Message-
From: Alastair Morrison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11 November 2003 17:29
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K services stopping
Last week I posting to this list about SMTP between our
current E2K
Internet Mail, not exchange.
Thanks!
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 6:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k multiple domains
You need domain2.com in a recipient policy.
Ed
--- Steck, Herb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I added that. Anything else I need to do? Users can get their mail via pop, but now
when they try to send they get the 550 error.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 6:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2k multiple
Make sure they are authenticating properly and that you have relaying with
authentication turned on.
-Original Message-
From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2k multiple domains
Not sure if this got
You need domain2.com in a recipient policy.
Ed
--- Steck, Herb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to be missing something and it's causing me
to go bald very early in life. Here is what I am
doing:
Single Exchange 2k Server
domain1.com has always worked
Have added new users that will be
School, Annapolis Maryland
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration issue
Not too sure that will work. The E2K servers are in AD will the 5.5 servers
are not. Also, the E2K
It doesn't work if the exchange servers aren't in the same org.
From: Peter Orlowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 13:09:59 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: E2K migration issue
It will work. Its
We are running Trend with EX2K with no issues at all.
John Parker, MCSE
IS Admin.
Senior Technical Specialist
Digital Display Systems.
Alpha Video
7711 Computer Ave.
Edina, MN. 55435
952-896-9898 Local
800-388-0008 Watts
952-896-9899 Fax
612-804-8769 Cell
952-841-3327 Direct
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leave up the old Ex5.5 server for a little while. Outlook will see that
it's mailbox has moved to a new server, and update the profile itself.
Steven
---
Steven Dickenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Network Administrator
The Key School, Annapolis Maryland
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua
Are you doing it all in one shot? You can just put a cname in dns and a
static record in wins pointing to your old server.
If I remember correctly, Outlook was able to find the new exchange
server for mailbox that have been moved to e2k as long as the exchange
5.5 server was online the first
Not too sure that will work. The E2K servers are in AD will the 5.5 servers
are not. Also, the E2K servers are in a new Exchange ORG.
-Original Message-
From: Dickenson, Steven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 4:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K
Discussions
Subject: Re: E2K Forest/Domain-prep on Win2003 Domain?
IMNSHO upgrading to W2K at this point is a waste of time. If you're going to
upgrade, upgrade to E2K3. It greatly simplifies the upgrade process from
Exchange 5.5 and offers a number of significant enhancement which make it a
much more
Yes, we excluded E2K directories from Trend AV. Again, the server was
running fine without a problem until last week. We did not make any
changes to the server nor Trend Micro Server Protect. For Priv1.edb to
mount, we have to turn off Trend Server Protect service.
: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:09:51 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: E2K and Trend Micro Server Protect
Yes, we excluded E2K directories from Trend AV. Again, the server was
running fine without a problem until last week. We did not make any
changes to the server nor Trend
Mr. Kong,
I assume you've excluded the Exchange working directories from being scanned
by your file based AV product, is that correct?
From: HongKong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:06:47 -0700
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL
PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K and Trend Micro Server Protect
This looks like results of being hacked because the patch from MS03-026
has not been applied. (It may have been applied at one time and
somebody reran an older SP on the system)
Jeff
-Original Message-
From
Oops, I missed the part about them not being on the same ORG.
-Original Message-
From: Dickenson, Steven [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:47 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration issue
Hmmm. No, it won't work if they're not in the same ORG
This looks like results of being hacked because the patch from MS03-026
has not been applied. (It may have been applied at one time and
somebody reran an older SP on the system)
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of HongKong
Posted At:
It will work. Its by design.
- Peter
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration issue
Not too sure that will work. The E2K servers are in AD will the 5.5 servers
http://www.slipstick.com/exs/olroam.htm
From: Bennett, Joshua [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:58:19 -0400
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: E2K migration issue
Hello all,
I was wondering if anyone out there
IMNSHO upgrading to W2K at this point is a waste of time. If you're going to
upgrade, upgrade to E2K3. It greatly simplifies the upgrade process from
Exchange 5.5 and offers a number of significant enhancement which make it a
much more compelling upgrade story than E2K.
From: Dickenson, Steven
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: E2K Forest/Domain-prep on Win2003 Domain?
I have considered that, however we have Exchange 2000 EE free as part of an
upgrade advantage purchased with Exchange 5.5 EE. Upgrading to E2K3 EE
would cost me upwards of $1000. Is it worth
Im My Not So Humble Opinion.
- Original Message -
From: Dickenson, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 1:03 PM
Subject: RE: E2K Forest/Domain-prep on Win2003 Domain?
I have considered that, however we have Exchange 2000 EE
Mail Loop?
- Original Message -
From: George, Reju [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:44 PM
Subject: E2k trans logs #s increasing rapidly
Hi all,
The number of transaction logs being created on one of my Exchange
servers(E2k sp3)
to know what they
found. If it hasn't been seen then maybe I should be looking for a cause not
related to Exchange.
regards,
Richard Dann
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 June 2003 19:01
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services
Of Richard Dann
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 5:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
Acknowledged that the M drive is special, can't say it is non existent as it
appears in the folder tree. The question is more about how to avoid the
interactions that cause
hanging on starting
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
There's a reg hack that will hide the M: and put that part of the issue
to bed for good.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message
Does this break OWA? OWA seems to use M:
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
More of a script than a reg hack...
It's a part of my standard
Cornetet
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
Does this break OWA? OWA seems to use M:
-Original Message-
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I'm talking about OWA2k.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
Exchange 5.5 OWA is really MAPI, as I recall, the M: showing in IIS
isn't important
: E2K machine services hanging on starting
I'm talking about OWA2k.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
Exchange 5.5 OWA is really MAPI, as I
Cornetet
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K machine services hanging on starting
I'm talking about OWA2k.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
As I'm sure everyone will tell you shortly, there is no M: drive. It
does not exist. Make sure nothing tries to touch the non-existent M:
drive, especially AV products.
David
-Original Message-
From: Richard Dann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 10:55 AM
To:
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice
Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their front-end server to
the Internet.
Benefits:
1. You can make the non-clustered FE server the first server in site
without, as Ed points out, having
The Exchange guru from MS states that you can not move servers from one
Admin group to another. Hope this helps you.
From: Leeann McCallum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: E2K and E2K RC1
Date: Tue, 11
Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice
Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site
would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ.
That's even worse than
- MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Clustering advice
Talk them into using a proxy server to publish their
front-end server
Trying to remember. But I think it has to do with if your in Ad Native
mode or not and or in a mixed Exchange environment or not.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leeann
McCallum
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K and E2K RC1
Trying to remember. But I think it has to do with if your in Ad Native mode
or not and or in a mixed Exchange environment or not.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leeann McCallum
Sent
: Tuesday, 11 March 2003 3:08 p.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K and E2K RC1
Trying to remember. But I think it has to do with if your in Ad Native
mode
or not and or in a mixed Exchange environment or not.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Moving servers between admin groups was something they attempted in the
betas but coul dnot make work. Even with Exchange 2000 in native mode,
all objects have a legacyExchangeDN associated with them. If I remember
correctly, this was the reason that the decided it was going to be too
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2003 5:50 p.m.
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K and E2K RC1
Moving servers between admin groups was something they attempted in the
betas but coul dnot make work. Even with Exchange 2000 in native mode,
all objects have a legacyExchangeDN associated
Building the non-clustered front-end as the first server in the site
would mean that your Site Replication Server would reside in the DMZ.
That's even worse than a front-end server in a DMZ; I agree with your
opinion on that.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting
Timeout of what?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K OWA timeouts
We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We
are
Schedule periodic reboots of the client computer in question.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday,
Ken:
Are you looking at MessageWare (http://www.messageware.com)? I
have not worked with them personally, but I know a couple of folks that
have had good things to say about them.
Of course, you could always wait for Exchange 2003. :-)
Jim
-Original Message-
From:
You might give Q294752 a try. I have to say though, it didn't work for me. I
personally like Ed's solution the best.
Aaron
-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
Of logons so that when #$%@! idio^H^H^H^H users walk away from logged on
sessions someone can't walk in behind them and have their session.
-Original Message-
From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE
I'm looking for solutions for our Internet OWA servers.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
Schedule periodic reboots of the client computer in question.
Ed
That is an HTTP thing.
Limit connection timeout in IIS.
There are 3rd party products too.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 12:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
They are on the short list. I was hoping to hear about them.
-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
Ken:
Are you looking at MessageWare (http
will still have the user's credentials cached
and the user will not be prompted for credentials..
-Original Message-
From: Edwards, Aaron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
You might give Q294752 a try. I
This has always been an issue with OWA and why some companies flat out
refuse to use it.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
Thanks for trying but at the end
cookie out of memory so once the user hits the logoff page, they're done.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
This has always been an issue with OWA and why
, February 14, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA timeouts
That is an HTTP thing.
Limit connection timeout in IIS.
There are 3rd party products too.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Friday
Having multiple gateways always causes problems in my experience. What
is the reason for having the multiple gateways? Are they both in the
same subnet?
You are much better off avoiding a multiple gateway configuration if you
can.
-Kevin
-Original Message-
From: Jojo Solis
: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:20 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: Jojo Solis
Subject: RE: E2K WEIRD GATEWAY ADDRESS
Having multiple gateways always causes problems in my experience. What
is the reason for having the multiple gateways? Are they both in the
same subnet?
You are much better
Admins are denied access to all mailboxes by default in Exchange 2000.
For workarounds, see:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=262054
Neil
-Original Message-
From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Posted At: 10 February 2003 14:37
Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
Conversation:
If the SMTP logs don't show any outgoing records, then maybe the Virtual SMTP server
is not even trying to send them?
-Original Message-
From: Michael A. Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K Logging question
Michael -
Thank you very much for the assistance today. I finally found the
problem:
I was looking in the SMTP logs in %windir%\system32\logfiles, not in
correct place of
C:\Program Files\Exchsrv\server.log directory.
Once looking in the correct log, I found the outgoing email.
This of
Yes we do have a public folder store, public folder are working fine.
We used the move mailbox method.
regards
Uso
- Original Message -
From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: E2K Org Forms
Do you have a public folder store on one of your Exchange 2000 servers?
You didn't delete it, did you?
How did you move to Exchange 2000?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Seen this?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q244591
HTH
Deji
- Original Message -
From: Uso [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 3:57 AM
Subject: E2K Org Forms not appearing
Hi,
we recently moved to
domain. Nothing is in the root.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 3:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
If it works, why would you call PSS?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
I would really have to guess this is a misprint based on the other
destructions in the FE/BE topo documentation. Such as, having to add virtual
servers for different SMTP domains, etc. This is our setup, and it works
fine. We have the FE
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
If it works, why would you call PSS?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups
was a DNS related issue. Some nuthugger
put in a host file on a server in Jackson, Mississippi...
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
1
Mmmm destructing domains
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
Look for E2KFBTop.doc on MS website. It has destructions
=:-)
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:33 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different domains?
Mmmm destructing domains
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 12:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K front-end and back-end in different
domains?
1. Maybe my testing hasn't hit all the corner cases.
2. Perhaps it won't work in a future SP or hotfix.
3
If it works, why would you call PSS?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ken Cornetet
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 2:26
NetIQ used to do an end-to-end email ping-type test so I'd be
surprised if MOM did not.
I have also used Baranof software for this in the past which did a
perfectly adequate job and had a Web reporting function for managerial
types to look at. However any decent monitoring/management package
Use the Monitoring and Status node of ESM in E2K
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: E2K Link Monitor Replacement
What monitoring tools are people using that operate like the old 5.5
Hello John,
The company I work for has a product called ExRay for Exchange which
offers link monitor functionality.
You can get more information at www.intellireach.com
--- Greg
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002
ESM doesn't do link monitoring.
Thanks,
John Clark
Technology Operations Manager
Bank One Card Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
302.282.1464
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:32 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: E2K
-Original Message-
From: zEXList [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:53 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K Link Monitor Replacement
Hello John,
The company I work for has a product called ExRay for Exchange which
offers link monitor functionality
that was it, duh.
-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K stops getting mail when LDAP down
Are you running E2K SP2 or SP3 (you should be). Pre-SP2 was not as good
Which was it?
-Original Message-
From: Dan Aalberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K stops getting mail when LDAP down
that was it, duh.
-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Are you running E2K SP2 or SP3 (you should be). Pre-SP2 was not as good
as automatically switching over to another global catalog.
And Mike is right, both domain controllers must be global catalogs if
you want redundancy for Exchange 2000.
HTH,
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Dan Aalberg
No pitfalls other than you can't actually do it that way.
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Got a question for you all. In the planning stages of a E2K
migration from
5.5 SP4.
Why couldn't you if you are in mixed-mode?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
No pitfalls other than you can't actually do it that way.
-Original Message
Subject: RE: E2K migration
Why couldn't you if you are in mixed-mode?
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
No pitfalls other than you can't actually do it that way
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
No pitfalls other than you can't actually do it that way.
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Got a question for you all
,
at once, cut-over to E2K.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
In order to install Exchange 2000 into an Exchange 5.5 org it needs to be
installed into an existing
, November 21, 2002 1:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
You can't join a 5.5 Org to an E2K server. You can join an E2K server to an
existing 5.5 ORG, but only if you have the ADC installed first.
Hunter
-Original Message-
From: Bennett, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL
: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
In order to install Exchange 2000 into an Exchange 5.5 org it
needs to be
installed into an existing Exchange 5.5 site. And as you've already
determined, in order to install into an Exchange 5.5 site
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:40 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K migration
In order to install Exchange 2000 into an Exchange 5.5 org it needs to be
installed into an existing Exchange 5.5 site. And as you've already
determined, in order
Is the other server a GC also?
-Original Message-
From: Dan Aalberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 2:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K stops getting mail when LDAP down
Hi All,
been a while since I wrote the list.
I have an issue
What SP have you installed?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Aalberg
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:16 PM
To:
It should not be harmful, but there are never any guarantees.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K: automatic address list creation
I can be a tool...
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, Exchange MVP, And Beyond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-98850;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Tuesday, October 22
I find him most useful.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Seielstad
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 4:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K: automatic address list creation
Can
Given enough $ there's a tool to do everything.
-Original Message-
From: Uso [mailto:usofwd;gmx.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K: automatic address list creation
Hi,
is there a way to create a hierarchal address list view
I can be a tool...
--Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, Exchange MVP, And Beyond
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-98850;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 3:22 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K: automatic address list
I am running them in 6 different domains (BE that is), no problems so
far.
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet;kimball.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 9:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: E2K FE/BE setup
Do E2K front-end servers have to be in the same
As long as they are in the same forest :)
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:mhutchins;amr-corp.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 11:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K FE/BE setup
I am running them in 6 different domains (BE that is), no problems so
far
Fact, not fiction...
=:-)
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K FE/BE setup
As long as they are in the same forest :)
-Original Message-
From: Hutchins
Hi There
Interesting that you should ask this question - I had the same question come
up recently. The way it was explained to me was this:
If you do not back up all of your stores, then none of your transaction logs
will be purged. So
The correct answer is...
1) Disable circular
Not exactly.
-Original Message-
From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:08 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K question
Hi There
Interesting that you should ask this question - I had the
same question come up recently
AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K question
Hi There
Interesting that you should ask this question - I had the same question come
up recently. The way it was explained to me was this:
If you do not back up all of your stores, then none of your transaction logs
will be purged. So
1 - 100 of 404 matches
Mail list logo
