The answer is UAG, which I'm currently implementing and it seems ok (if I can
ever get it to work properly...)
Nick
From: Liby Philip Mathew [mailto:lmat...@path-solutions.com]
Sent: 14 March 2013 07:04
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: TMG replacement.
Hi,
I survive completely on ISA.
We also use TMG and this is what I have heard from both from our TAM and from
MS engineers at MEC. UAG is the 'official' replacement; however everyone
acknowledges this it is not the best fit when using ONLY for Exchange. TMG is
supported with Exchange 2013. If you are on Exchange 2010 now
I would have liked to go with TMG, but however according to
http://blogs.technet.com/b/server-cloud/archive/2012/09/12/important-changes-to-forefront-product-roadmaps.aspx
as of 2013 it is no longer available for purchase, which seems a bit
shortsighted!
Nick
From: Steven Alfano
http://thoughtsofanidlemind.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/windows-jericho-forum/
Makes interesting reading.
From: bounce-9589915-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
[mailto:bounce-9589915-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of
Nicholas Turner
Sent: 14 March 2013 13:52
To: MS-Exchange Admin
Kemp, CoyotePoint, F5, BigIP, Cisco, apache, nginx, Zen, the list goes on...
you can spend as much or as little for a reverse proxy and minimal LB as you
want.
From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:58 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE:
This decision was not made by the Exchange Team.
Nor by the Lync Team.
From: Steven Alfano [mailto:salf...@mail.rockefeller.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:38 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: TMG replacement.
We also use TMG and this is what I have heard from both from our TAM
I did find an entry with the @CDFW.local, with the same information as below.
So it looks like it gets past authentication, but when it starts sending the
data, it then errors out?
From: Joseph Heaton [mailto:joseph.hea...@wildlife.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:13 PM
To: Heaton,
If you want TMG then a couple of companies tell me they can still provide it in
appliance form...
Dave Wade
Senior ICT Technician
Stockport Council
Stopford House
Stockport
SK1 3XE
0161 474 5456
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: 14 March 2013 15:05
To: MS-Exchange
Just following up to see if anyone had any feedback or recommendation.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Greg Saunders gsaund...@myitanalyst.comwrote:
As an FYI: I was able to find a way to disable authentication on remote
application so now I can setup specific receiver to accept emails from
Exchange 2010, Outlook 2010. If a user creates a mail folder under the Mailbox
and assigns it an archive policy, then a folder will be created in the Archive
with the same name. If the user tries to set a retention policy on the archive
folder, the next day it reverts back to the policy of
Would like to know if anyone has had practical experience converting
an Active/Passive two node Exchange 2003 server cluster into an
ACTIVE/ACTIVE cluster?
Is it even doable?
My customer is trying to limp along for a couple of more months while
they perform due diligence and make a final
It is doable however I would recommend reading this article first.
http://www.msexchange.org/articles-tutorials/exchange-server-2003/planning-architecture/NO-Active-Active-Cluster.html
With the limitations of legacy 32-bit operating systems Exchange can easily
hit resource constraints when two
Thanks for the link, I'll read through it.
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Brian Hintz bhi...@gmail.com wrote:
It is doable however I would recommend reading this article first.
We ran into the same issue and opened a case with MS. We were told this was
expected behavior as the intent is to have policy on 'Folder X' in mailbox
match that of 'Folder X' in the archive. Our response, at the time, was that
was fine, but then users should not be able to change the policy
Thanks Shawn. I couldn't help but notice that the discussion was 2 years old.
That doesn't inspire any confidence that MS is going to do anything about it.
What about Exchange 2013? Any ideas that this may be addressed there?
-Paul
-Original Message-
From: Beckers, Shawn (IT
This is a known issue. Triage has been completed. User impact is being
assessed.
That means they know it is a problem but they aren't sure they want to fix it.
:)
-Original Message-
From: Beckers, Shawn (IT Services) [mailto:sbeck...@csbsju.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:17 PM
You've already been given a link on it - but I just want to emphasize that it
is really a bad idea.
-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:john.matte...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:32 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Converting an Active/Passive two node
My user impact wants to be assessed. How can I get them to assess our impact?
-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:19 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Retention tag on archive folder
This is a known issue.
You have to open a call and complain.
-Original Message-
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:41 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Retention tag on archive folder
My user impact wants to be assessed. How can I get them to assess
I reckon so, because the online version isn't working. :-)
The system has encountered an unexpected error. We apologize for the
inconvenience. The issue will be addressed as quickly as possible.
If this error continues, click the Help link at the top of the page to report
the issue and
Thanks Michael.
It's not my first choice either. I'd rather have the customer complete the
build out of their Exchange 2010 VM's and start migrating. However, I am
trying to be neutral here and gather the answers to the evitable management
questions.
John M.
-Original Message-
From:
21 matches
Mail list logo
