-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically,
I don't
-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 13:38
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Being
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Actually cache mode works fine with Exchange 5.5 (I'm using it that way home
and office
Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange
strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy
includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this
highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal
Folders containing there
Tuip
MVP Exchange
Exchange 2000 List owner
www.exchange-mail.org
www.sharepointserver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
- Original Message -
From: Neil Doody [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:34 AM
Subject: Sync Folders
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire
Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of
that strategy includes Backups. The new idea
how can a 256meg pipe be bad?
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe?
:)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that
PST's
a couple of p2p servers;)
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 08:08
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe?
:)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad
: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe?
:)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure
Discussions
Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
how can a 256meg pipe be bad?
- Original Message -
From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe?
:)
-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Lol, yeah, even if it was a 256KB pipe, that's still
2048kbit, 2mb pipes up and down the country, don't think I
could give a toss about
Yep.
Once they fix some of the bugs, Outlook 11 is the ticket.
- Original Message -
From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Without going directly into the OST
Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the
application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot
of
bandwidth between their clients and the servers
on
outlook 11 by the sounds of things.
-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 09 June 2003 13:24
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then!
In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices
Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder
is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox,
so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until
you synchronise, that means downloading the email again.
Also, what would happen
: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:24 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then!
In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256
link back to the main Exch Server
Message-
From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder
is the fact that when
19 matches
Mail list logo
