I have the same problem using 2003 Server, 2003 Exchange but with no 5.5's
in the mix. Does not appear to have anything to do with Outlook version -
tried 2000 and 2003. I'm using XP as my client machine.
I have the above plus a DC in a test environment and posted the info a while
back.
, January 08, 2004 9:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 - Bookmark Not Valid
I have the same problem using 2003 Server, 2003 Exchange but with no 5.5's
in the mix. Does not appear to have anything to do with Outlook version -
tried 2000 and 2003. I'm using XP as my client
There is a known issue with using Outlook 2K3 with Exchange 5.5. Check Microsoft's KB.
John Matteson
Geac Corporate ISS
(404) 239 - 2981
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of EXLIST
Posted At: Sunday, December 28, 2003
Could it be because you are using the local store cache mode with your
Outlook 2003 profile? The cache does not know anything about the limit,
but when it starts synchronizing things, it bumps into the online limit
and then generates an NDR... Just a guess.
Sincerely,
Andrey Fyodorov, Exchange
Yes it appears that the Exchange Cache Mode was what was causing the
problem. I turned it off and all appears to be working well now.
Is this just an issue between Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5? I would like
to have this feature enabled because it really does make the end user
experience pretty
Not sure, but my guestimate is that this is how it would work with any
version of Exchange.
-Original Message-
From: Barry Kuske [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 and Exchange 5.5 Strange Behavior
Yes
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:59 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
And how does little old Clark County have the money to send their sysadmin
to two conferences in one year?
Sheesh!!
Darcy Adams
Sr. Exchange Administrator
Getty Images
Tel 206-925-6617
Cell
:43 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
S
Actually, they are sending two of us. :)
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver,
Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:53 AM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Oh man. They need to fix
]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:01 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
And how does little old Clark County have the money to send their sysadmin
to two conferences in one year?
Sheesh!!
Darcy Adams
Sr. Exchange Administrator
Getty Images
Tel 206-925-6617
Cell 206-255-0169
11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
I was just at a office release kick off that MS had and they also said that
the best path from 5.5 was a new server and Exchange 2003
Nathaniel Dean
EVMS Health Services
721 Fairfax Ave 101
Norfolk VA 23507
757-446-0317
-Original
It does for SPLA.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erick Thompson
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Does Outlook 2003 have the same licensing setup as the other versions
://www.davidsonbicycles.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
So true Even then I have gotten conflicting answers. I have been told
that we have purchased everything. I am just
Finnesey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 12:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
No only problem I have found is no Blackberry desktop support.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 12:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
No only problem I have found is no Blackberry desktop support.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Walden H. Leverich III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 6:44 AM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Well, if you're going to include 3rd party software:
salesforce.com's outlook edition doesn't work
) 425.681.4190
2 425.793.6000
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
So true Even then I have gotten conflicting answers. I have been
Discussions
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
I am using the Blackberry desktop with outlook 2003. I am
using the final released Outlook (11.5608.5606) and Desktop
Manager 3.6.0.54. I used to have an older version of the
desktop manager which did NOT work with outlook
We are also having a problem that the Microsoft CRM Client is also
unsupported.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walden H.
Leverich III
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:46 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003
:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
FWIW,
We are using the latest BES and the 3.6.0.54 Desktop manager, Blackberry
is great on Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003.
-Warren
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Alverson, Tom
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Ryan Finnesey
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
You have BES running on Exchange 2003? I met with Blackberry
last week and they told me it was unsupported and they do not
have
Of Warren Cundy
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
I didn't talk to Blackberry support myself, but a colleague here went up
a few levels of tech support with them and confirmed that it worked. We
tested, and it did.
We aren't on native 2003 yet
-
From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
I don't think I was totally clear. I was wondering if the
Exchange CAL allowed me to use Outlook 2003 only (not all of
Office). I wouldn't assume
No only problem I have found is no Blackberry desktop support.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Outlook 2003.
We are currently running
There has been an issue raised with the store.exe service crashing with
outlook 2003 clients being used in some cases. MS has released a store.exe
patch that fixes it. One exch 5.5 server out 36 we have had this issue, and
the patch fixed it.
Anthony L. Sollars
Technology Consultant
Information
OL 2003 works great with Exchange 5.5
If you use OWA, there is hotfix you will want to install to ensure
compatability with OL2003 and E55 OWA users. There is also one for OL2003
rules that can cause issues with Exchange 5.5. If I could remember the KB
numbers I would post them.
-Original
Sure, do it. Outlook 2003 is really nice. We are upgrading from 2000
straight to 2003. What a difference!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:51 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Outlook 2003.
We are currently
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
OL 2003 works great with Exchange 5.5
If you use OWA, there is hotfix you will want to install to ensure
compatability with OL2003 and E55 OWA users. There is also one for OL2003
rules that can
PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlo Clizer
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Sure, do it. Outlook 2003 is really nice. We are upgrading from 2000
straight to 2003. What a difference!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlo Clizer
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Sure, do it. Outlook 2003 is really nice. We are upgrading from 2000
straight to 2003. What a difference!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED
, October 16, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Check with your MS licensing rep for exact details. I was told that
each Exchange 2003 CAL includes a license to use Outlook 2003, but not
all of Office. I don't believe that you can use Exchange 2000 CAL's do
Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 2:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Does Outlook 2003 have the same licensing setup as the other
versions? That is, I have an Exchange 2000 server, and
licenses for Office 2000. Can I install
x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:10 AM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Check with your MS licensing rep for exact details. I was told that each
Exchange 2003 CAL includes
to Outlook 2003.
Thanks,
Erick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
Check with your MS licensing rep for exact details. I was told
2003.
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003.
I don't think I was totally clear. I was wondering if the Exchange CAL
allowed me to use Outlook 2003 only (not all of Office). I wouldn't
assume that it would allow me to use all of office. We're on Office 2k,
and will stick with that for a little bit longer, but I
I would guess that the junk mail filters are using rules, and you might need to set
Continue Processing Rules
But then if you've already filtered them are they junk?
Harriet
-Original Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 September 2003 09:51
To: Exchange
Well in outlook 2003, the junk rules are replaced with a built in filter
facility, a separate entry from normal rules. The email is definintly
Junk, but I'm wanting to use the safe lists that are now built in. With
safe lists all emails are moved to Junk Email unless the sender is on
your safe
-
Ben M. Schorr
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Doody
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 00:00
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook
Of Neil Doody
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 00:00
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Junk Mail Filters
Well in outlook 2003, the junk rules are replaced with a built in filter
facility, a separate entry from normal rules. The email is definintly
Junk, but I'm wanting to use
This was an explicit design decision based on client feedback during the
beta. The overwhelming response was, that if I have rules touching my
mail, it is for a reason, don't treat it as spam. Unfortunately it
appears that you are in the minority on this one, it's unlikely that the
behavior you
, September 24, 2003 3:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Junk Mail Filters
Yah, but the problem is, even with my Junk E-mail set to High, my usual
rules are over-riding the built in Junk Filters of Outlook 2003.
So if I have my normal rules turned off, the Junk Mail filter
Actually it comes out to be about twice the size of the mailbox.
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact
replica of
Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the
deltas are synched.
And 225MB? How much time would that take to transfer over a typical
corporate network? 100Mb/S?
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday,
initial sync delays each startup.
-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the
deltas are synched
-Original Message-
From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 12 June 2003 14:28
To: Exchange Discussions
Well,
I don't have 100Mb/S to my house (assuming you are talking
about MAPI/HTTP, however it is a very cool feature and 225MB
is not a huge mailbox. So,
is that because it accounts for both the .edb and .stm files? :)
-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
Actually it comes out to be about twice the size
I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the
local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very
good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the
same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries.
-Original Message-
I dont believe its enabled by default.
- Original Message -
From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem
The local cache file would be associated with the user profile.
Are you concerned that if I log into your PC I can get to your email by
searching under C:\Documents and Settings\Mwoodruff\Juicy_OST_File ?
-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
It could be a lot bigger - public folder favorites are also stored locally.
-Original Message-
I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an
exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine
mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be
, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the
local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very
good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the
same PC. If you can
, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is
the
local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a
very
good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on
the
same PC. If you can
:26 PM
Subject: Re: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
'tis too, at least in current builds. AFAIK, it will remain default in later
builds too.
- Original Message -
I dont believe its enabled by default.
- Original Message -
From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange
I love the feature and I think your remote users will too. I was getting
way tired of having Outlook hang when I accidentally selected a message with
a large attachment and Oulook tried to retireve it for viewing in the
preview pane.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
54 matches
Mail list logo
