Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«46 »
  • Post
  • Reply
LoKout
Apr 2, 2003

Professional Fetus Taster

That sounds pretty easy actually. If you have C level sign off, write up a policy to block sending email after a certain size mailbox. Setup some auto archive settings via GPO to delete/move old emails (I'd suggest deletion). Have the C level person send out the email with the new policy and blam - put it in place and wipe hands. Complaints go to them and your mail store is now manageable.

If you're changing to Enterprise and reworking your mailstores anyways, why not upgrade to 2007 or 2010? There's a lot more policy management available that will help you limit/archive email. 2010 enterprise has built in archiving that's somewhat useful. Not quite as good as a full blown archive product, but in a pinch it can get the job done.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

angry armadillo
Jul 26, 2010


That is the easy bit - how do you decide that 'certain level' though?

I don't think we will be looking at 07/2010 because nothing else in the company is there yet, cant hurt to ask though

LoKout
Apr 2, 2003

Professional Fetus Taster

angry armadillo posted:

That is the easy bit - how do you decide that 'certain level' though?

I don't think we will be looking at 07/2010 because nothing else in the company is there yet, cant hurt to ask though

07 would be a good upgrade because it doesn't require anything past Server 2003, x64 if you need it. 2010 would also require Server 2008, but it's a lot nicer. It feels like Windows 7 vs. Vista (Exchange 2007). That being said, Exchange 2007 also improved a lot after SP1. They're at SP4 now I think, but I'd see no reason not to use the latest SP.

As for deciding on a cap, do some mailbox size reports and shoot for the 80/20 rule: look for something that is good for 80% of your users and would require work to lower the 20% above the cap. I would try to stay away from exceptions, even for execs, unless you have other policies that already exclude them or set different rules. As a lower level employee I hate exec level exceptions, unless they are truly necessary. Often they are not and just cause more issues than they are worth.

The Fool
Oct 16, 2003

"This song is in Rock Band."

Originally posted in the ticket thread, but this is probably a better fit:

New customer, no backups, had two drives in a raid 5 die. I've been working with them on getting their data recovered, and have got everything set back up except for one thing.

Exchange Public Folders.

They're running Exchange 2007, I set up exchange fresh, and have the 40 gb EDB and a ton of transaction log files from the old server, but restoring the edb into the new server appears to be basically voodoo. All of the write-ups I've seen on restoring databases in this situation mostly involve using a recovery store, but that public folders don't work with a recovery store.

What do I need to do to get the public folder database up and running again without sacrificing a goat?

Powerful Two-Hander
Mar 9, 2004

May peace be everywhere.

I also have a question about Public Folders - is there any way of getting mails out of the drat things as files? I've seen a few references to third party .net libraries but it seems a bit odd that there's no bulk export to .msg method anywhere in Exchange itself.

The reason I ask is that we're replacing public folders with a vendor system for sharing mails and it would be nice if we could bundle the current stuff into it somehow as it doesn't link to Exchange directly. The vendor has been a bit evasive about whether they could do it and this wasn't a dealbreaker as most of the current data is poorly indexed, but if we can get it out we can reclaim something ridiculous like 500Gb of Exchange storage capacity.

Gyshall
Feb 24, 2009

Had a couple of drinks.
Saw a couple of things.


Don't quote me on this, but you should be able to use Outlook to dump the public folders to a PST file, and then export or save them as MSG files then.

The Fool
Oct 16, 2003

"This song is in Rock Band."

Gyshall posted:

Don't quote me on this, but you should be able to use Outlook to dump the public folders to a PST file, and then export or save them as MSG files then.

I'm quoting you. ha


That would probably be possible if the public folders were cached in an OST. That's how I recovered their mailboxes. I'll look into it, but if all of the folders were not cached, it may not work.

e: I would prefer to be able to mount the edb in exchange anyway, if possible

The Fool
Oct 16, 2003

"This song is in Rock Band."

The Fool posted:

Originally posted in the ticket thread, but this is probably a better fit:

New customer, no backups, had two drives in a raid 5 die. I've been working with them on getting their data recovered, and have got everything set back up except for one thing.

Exchange Public Folders.

They're running Exchange 2007, I set up exchange fresh, and have the 40 gb EDB and a ton of transaction log files from the old server, but restoring the edb into the new server appears to be basically voodoo. All of the write-ups I've seen on restoring databases in this situation mostly involve using a recovery store, but that public folders don't work with a recovery store.

What do I need to do to get the public folder database up and running again without sacrificing a goat?

So, after doing some stuff with eseutil, I am getting an error in event viewer that says the db is not mounting because the site and org name are different. After doing some research it appears the only way to resolve this without any downtime on the customers part is going to be:

1. Setup a test install in vmware at my shop, matching the original site and org names
2. Restore db's to test environment.
3. use either exmerge or an outlook client to export what I need to pst
4. import from pst to new server

Am I right in thinking that this is probably the best way to do this?

madsushi
Apr 19, 2009

Baller.

The Fool posted:

So, after doing some stuff with eseutil, I am getting an error in event viewer that says the db is not mounting because the site and org name are different. After doing some research it appears the only way to resolve this without any downtime on the customers part is going to be:

1. Setup a test install in vmware at my shop, matching the original site and org names
2. Restore db's to test environment.
3. use either exmerge or an outlook client to export what I need to pst
4. import from pst to new server

Am I right in thinking that this is probably the best way to do this?

Yes. I have had to do this before, and this was the only way I found to fix it.

Recluse
Mar 5, 2004

Yeah, I did that.

I have a customer in an Exchange 2010 environment in which they run Outlook 2007 on their desktop in the office, and Entourage on their Mac at home. In Entourage they're getting winmail.dat attachments for all their e-mails, even if the sender specifies to send in plain text. Since they are running Outlook, I can't disable MAPI in their mailbox properties and since it's their internal domain disabling RTF for remote domains of course doesn't work-is the only solution to use both just setting up the IMAP connector for him to use in Entourage?

Gyshall
Feb 24, 2009

Had a couple of drinks.
Saw a couple of things.


Recluse posted:

I have a customer in an Exchange 2010 environment in which they run Outlook 2007 on their desktop in the office, and Entourage on their Mac at home. In Entourage they're getting winmail.dat attachments for all their e-mails, even if the sender specifies to send in plain text. Since they are running Outlook, I can't disable MAPI in their mailbox properties and since it's their internal domain disabling RTF for remote domains of course doesn't work-is the only solution to use both just setting up the IMAP connector for him to use in Entourage?

Yeesh, what version of Entourage? Entourage 2007 should be OK, I have similar clients with Exchange 2010/Entourage/Outlook for Mac who don't have such issues. Is it pretty much ust narrowed down to Entourage clients? If you send to Gmail/Yahoo/webmail/Blackberry it doesn't show up?

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

angry armadillo posted:

So this seems like a reasonable thread to post this:

Managing exchange mailboxes, please tell me how you do it.

It's not my decision on how we do it in our place, but if you haven't read the ticket came in thread, our exchange server died and the CIO wasn't happy with how my line manager, manages mailboxes (say that out loud )

Specifically, we run exchange 2003, it used to be standard edition and we nearly hit the 65gb limit. At this point my boss went round some of the biggest mailboxes and archived all their mail into personal folders on a network share.

The he realised the info store wasn't going down in size because he needed to do an offline defrag. This was going to take longer than a weekend so he never bothered. Eventually we hit the limit and used the email crash as a way of getting an order for exchange 2003 enterprise signed off... So now we pretty much just let users have big mail boxes.

- I'd say we have around 300 users and a mailbox store of 160gb, which from what I have discussed elsewhere isn't that big. However refer to the above about the CIO not being happy - he said he wanted us to reduce it by 50%.

His reasoning will be that he does a lot of work with the company that own us, and because they own us our policies on basically everything have to be in line as possible with theirs - their mailbox policy is 10mb of space each or 40mb if you are an exec. Archive or delete anything else. (though they have around 600k users worldwide, I'm not sure how that breaks down regionally, but I guess that is why they are a touch on the militant side perhaps?)


As much as it isn't my decision on how we change our policy, I can see 'buying enterprise and ignoring the problem' isn't a solution. There is a 'post-server-crash' meeting this week and I'd at least like to look half informed when I open my mouth.


So any knowledge would be appreciated

I hope you have some beige fatigues and jackboots to wear into the office after you impose that strict a limit. 10MB is barely anything.

I would first plan on moving to 2010, don't even consider 2007 at this stage. For an org with that many mailboxes you should not run into any problems with a new hardware request as part of the migration.

Then implement online archiving as part of the rollout.

The one thing you absolutely 100% at all costs want to avoid is PST files. Local stored PST files may as well be lost email, since their retention is completely out of your control and you have really no options for disaster recovery.

Opening PST files across the network is bad. Simply do not do it ever, especially as part of any kind of company policy. If you are in charge of managing exchange in any capacity then I really shouldn't have to explain why.

Linux Nazi fucked around with this message at Jun 7, 2011 around 16:24

sanchez
Feb 26, 2003


PST's are indeed horrible. If the mail is valuable it should be kept in exchange. If it is not it should be deleted. PST's are a middle ground that always comes back to bite someone in the rear end.

Shadowhand00
Jan 22, 2006

Golden Bear is ever watching; day by day he prowls, and when he hears the tread of lowly Stanfurd red,from his Lair he fiercely growls.

What is the maximum size a PST should be before moving onto a fresh one?

Gyshall
Feb 24, 2009

Had a couple of drinks.
Saw a couple of things.


Shadowhand00 posted:

What is the maximum size a PST should be before moving onto a fresh one?

For Exchange? 0, nil, nada. If you are on Exchange, you should have OST files instead.

That being said, I have seen some clients who have outside consultants who have upwards of 16gb PST files, sometimes worse.

Linux Nazi posted:

I hope you have some beige fatigues and jackboots to wear into the office after you impose that strict a limit. 10MB is barely anything.

I would first plan on moving to 2010, don't even consider 2007 at this stage. For an org with that many mailboxes you should not run into any problems with a new hardware request as part of the migration.

Then implement online archiving as part of the rollout.

The one thing you absolutely 100% at all costs want to avoid is PST files. Local stored PST files may as well be lost email, since their retention is completely out of your control and you have really no options for disaster recovery.

Opening PST files across the network is bad. Simply do not do it ever, especially as part of any kind of company policy. If you are in charge of managing exchange in any capacity then I really shouldn't have to explain why.

This is all fantastic advice. The 10MB limit is a bit harsh. Consider a gig per mailbox, maybe more. Set up deleted item retention limits and archiving, and Exchange will pretty much maintain itself in both of those regards.

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

Gyshall posted:

For Exchange? 0, nil, nada. If you are on Exchange, you should have OST files instead.

That being said, I have seen some clients who have outside consultants who have upwards of 16gb PST files, sometimes worse.


This is all fantastic advice. The 10MB limit is a bit harsh. Consider a gig per mailbox, maybe more. Set up deleted item retention limits and archiving, and Exchange will pretty much maintain itself in both of those regards.

He already has an average of ~500MB per mailbox, so I think that with archiving you could realistically manage it down to 100MB without too many headaches.

Just 10 MB, sheesh. I mean there are certainly environments where modest mail store allocation isn't really required, but normal office type work would be hell: "Wait, before you send me that attachment I have to delete literally ever message in my inbox.... okay now try it"

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

Shadowhand00 posted:

What is the maximum size a PST should be before moving onto a fresh one?

Newer unicode PST files can get to roughly 18-20GB, the old ASCII encoded files were those hellbeasts with a 2GB limit that people loved to break.


I remember having to schlep broken 2GB PST files over to an at-the-time top of the line dual P3 Dell Poweredge with a SCSI RAID 0+1 array in order to get the inbox repair tool to process it before the end of the day.

Scaramouche
Mar 26, 2001

SPACE FACE! SPACE FACE!

Linux Nazi posted:

I would first plan on moving to 2010, don't even consider 2007 at this stage. For an org with that many mailboxes you should not run into any problems with a new hardware request as part of the migration.

One caveat with this is that I've noticed exch 2010 doesn't play well with < Outlook 2007 so make sure your clients are up to snuff/available. This is why we're still stuck on exch 2007 SP3.

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

Scaramouche posted:

One caveat with this is that I've noticed exch 2010 doesn't play well with < Outlook 2007 so make sure your clients are up to snuff/available. This is why we're still stuck on exch 2007 SP3.

What types of problems have you encountered? I've got (unfortunately) many Outlook 2003 clients at many sites using Exchange 2010 and haven't had any issues.

I've had the exact opposite, Outlook 2007 not playing nice with resource accounts and sending meeting requests in an exchange 2003 environment, though they released a patch specifically to address that (finally).

These days though I'm not sure how far I would let my sympathy go for people complaining about wanting to still use Office 2003. I certainly would not let it drive my decision making on a new Exchange deployment, if I was experiencing problems with Outlook 2003 on Exchange 2010, I would be far more likely to write Outlook 2003 out of the picture or tell people they will just have to cope with whatever nuance crops up.

Scaramouche
Mar 26, 2001

SPACE FACE! SPACE FACE!

The core functionality is there, I think the big problems are with public folders and global address lists. I was thinking about the upgrade but then googled 'outlook 2003 with exchange 2010' and saw all these horror stories and held off; the furor might be overblown it's true.

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

Scaramouche posted:

The core functionality is there, I think the big problems are with public folders and global address lists. I was thinking about the upgrade but then googled 'outlook 2003 with exchange 2010' and saw all these horror stories and held off; the furor might be overblown it's true.

It's overblown.

Outlook 2003 is blind to how the GAL/OAB operate behind the scenes, suffice to say that if your Outlook 2003 clients are having problems with retrieving the global address list and accessing public folders, than your Outlook 2010 clients are going to be having the same problem.

There are considerations you have to prepare for if you are going to have extended periods of coexistence, such as enabling VLV and waiting for the GroupMetrics to perform its initial generation (which only occurs on sunday, I've never found a way to force it).

FWIW I've stumbled through some of my first Exchange 2010 migrations relatively blind and never did any of that and by the time I had the mailboxes living on the new server, everything was fine. Never even saw any errors.

incoherent
Apr 24, 2004

01010100011010000111001
00110100101101100011011
000110010101110010


angry armadillo posted:

Specifically, we run exchange 2003, it used to be standard edition and we nearly hit the 65gb limit.

There is a registry edit out there to push this 75GB.

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

incoherent posted:

There is a registry edit out there to push this 75GB.

They obviously know about that entry since it has been raised from the default already.

Besides you never actually set it for the maximum size, I usually would set it for 70GB, that way when it hit the top I had room to bump it up another couple gigs so I could keep it mounted and deal with the cleanup.

NinjaPablo
Nov 20, 2003

Ewww it's all sticky...

Scaramouche posted:

The core functionality is there, I think the big problems are with public folders and global address lists. I was thinking about the upgrade but then googled 'outlook 2003 with exchange 2010' and saw all these horror stories and held off; the furor might be overblown it's true.
I'm in the processing of rolling out Exchange 2010 in an existing 2003 environment. Update Rollup 3 for 2010 adds a registry option to re-enable UDP push notification for Outlook 2003 clients, which fixes a generic 'Unknown Error' message some users were getting when deleting messages.

I also had a misconfigured SMTP connector set up between 2003 and 2010 that was causing email to get stuck in a routing loop, but that was more my fault than anything.

Slagwag
Oct 27, 2010

"I am not a nugget!"

On on the verge of having to jump into Exchange Enterprise. Have maxxed out the amount of DBs I can have with 100-150gb in each DB. drat people needing 5 years + accessible easily.

Ruby got Railed
Sep 29, 2001




This may be a silly question and the answer evident once we finish rolling it out...


Switching from a hosted pop/smtp email to an inhouse exchange 2010 setup. Clients are all Outlook 2010.

Out of office messages - We have several distrobution lists for email, and if someone on one of these lsits sets up an autoresponder for outofoffice, emails to list@domain.com are triggering that as well as to user@domain.com. In 2010 is there a way to only autorespond to emails at user@domain.com?

MuffinMan
Oct 1, 2001



Linux Nazi posted:

Newer unicode PST files can get to roughly 18-20GB, the old ASCII encoded files were those hellbeasts with a 2GB limit that people loved to break.


I remember having to schlep broken 2GB PST files over to an at-the-time top of the line dual P3 Dell Poweredge with a SCSI RAID 0+1 array in order to get the inbox repair tool to process it before the end of the day.

In my vast experience in dealing with restoring and attempting to repair too large PST files I always recommended that users keep them under 2GB or around there anyways. Mostly because everything was being saved to a network share and Outlook 2003 would typically corrupt the PST file if any sort of network latency occurred.

One PST per year is what I always said, otherwise avoid them entirely and delete delete delete.

MuffinMan
Oct 1, 2001



Has anyone encountered this?

We recently moved over to Exchange 2010, now out end users using Office 2007 have an issue when sorting by the "From" column. Once they switch the folder they're viewing and back all their mail disappear from the display until the resort the "From" column by ascending/descending.

Microsoft told us to just uninstall SP1, but I'm a little annoyed with that as it's not much of a solution.

adaz
Mar 7, 2009



Cuddly Coach posted:

This may be a silly question and the answer evident once we finish rolling it out...


Switching from a hosted pop/smtp email to an inhouse exchange 2010 setup. Clients are all Outlook 2010.

Out of office messages - We have several distrobution lists for email, and if someone on one of these lsits sets up an autoresponder for outofoffice, emails to list@domain.com are triggering that as well as to user@domain.com. In 2010 is there a way to only autorespond to emails at user@domain.com?

On the distribution group properties under advanced, you want to Send out-of-office message to originator turned off (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...y/bb125178.aspx).

Ruby got Railed
Sep 29, 2001




^^ Perfect, thanks! That's the exact behavior we're looking for

And yeah, when it got to the point of creating groups that should have been pretty evident

mindphlux
Jan 8, 2004

ich esse keine suppe - nein
ich esse meine suppe nicht
nein, meine suppe ess' ich nicht






lol ok so

migrated some accounts from exchange 2003 to hosted 2010 with intermedia

everything went pretty well, but then have some problems - users address books or something contain old x.400 (or 500? I don't know) names, and so when outlook autocompletes internal addresses, users get undeliverables (ie, trying to deliver to old server's x400 address)

so, intermedia offered to import my x.500 addresses if I could provide a list of them. which is swell, but I can't figure out a time efficient way to export a list of mailboxes along with proxy addresses from my old sbs2003 server.

anyone a better exchange admin than me? I could just type them by hand by opening active directory users and computers, but... naw.

mindphlux
Jan 8, 2004

ich esse keine suppe - nein
ich esse meine suppe nicht
nein, meine suppe ess' ich nicht






nevermind, think I got it using CSVDE ! learn something new every day

adaz
Mar 7, 2009



Man gently caress exchange's auto-complete cache forever and ever and ever amen. One of the most annoying "features" ever.

I'm not sure about exporting them out, but I do know if you wipe the auto-complete cache it should fix the problem. It should be under %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Outlook - ProfileName.Nk2 file and delete it, should be a fairly easy script.

LoKout
Apr 2, 2003

Professional Fetus Taster

If you delete the cache and users aren't using Outlook 2007 or newer they will think their address book is gone. Users are that dumb, and Outlook 2000/03 suck like that. Unfortunately there really isn't a better way to clean them up unless you have people do it manually (highlight the entry in the auto-complete and hit delete).

mindphlux
Jan 8, 2004

ich esse keine suppe - nein
ich esse meine suppe nicht
nein, meine suppe ess' ich nicht






goddamn

well hopefully intermedia will just add my x400 addresses to their exchange setup, and it'll be fine? (maybe?)

would this not work in a normal exchange 2003 to 20xx migration?

adaz
Mar 7, 2009



LoKout posted:

If you delete the cache and users aren't using Outlook 2007 or newer they will think their address book is gone. Users are that dumb, and Outlook 2000/03 suck like that. Unfortunately there really isn't a better way to clean them up unless you have people do it manually (highlight the entry in the auto-complete and hit delete).

This is true, although telling them all to type in the partial name and hitting Ctrl-K to it'll autocomplete them will help 90% of them through it (this should work on 2003 and later I believe).

Linux Nazi
May 6, 2003
./configure; make; HEIL!

mindphlux posted:

lol ok so

migrated some accounts from exchange 2003 to hosted 2010 with intermedia

everything went pretty well, but then have some problems - users address books or something contain old x.400 (or 500? I don't know) names, and so when outlook autocompletes internal addresses, users get undeliverables (ie, trying to deliver to old server's x400 address)

so, intermedia offered to import my x.500 addresses if I could provide a list of them. which is swell, but I can't figure out a time efficient way to export a list of mailboxes along with proxy addresses from my old sbs2003 server.

anyone a better exchange admin than me? I could just type them by hand by opening active directory users and computers, but... naw.

Correct, nickname cache can hold into invalid x400 address information and try to submit that information to the wrong location.

Have users start outlook with the /CleanAutoCompleteCache parameter, or script the deletion of the .nk2 file. You can also install the outlook admin templates and create a GPO to do the work for you, it's located in the "options\preferences\e-mail options\advanced e-mail" for the 2003/2007 templates.

Pro Exchange Admin tip: give users plenty of warning before you kill their autocomplete, people are dumb as hell about how they rely on that for important addresses.


adaz posted:

Man gently caress exchange's auto-complete cache forever and ever and ever amen. One of the most annoying "features" ever.

I'm not sure about exporting them out, but I do know if you wipe the auto-complete cache it should fix the problem. It should be under %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Outlook - ProfileName.Nk2 file and delete it, should be a fairly easy script.

You can't really blame exchange here, it is really only "at fault" for clients that support "roaming autocomplete lists", which currently is just Outlook 2010, and maybe the latest version for Macs.

The nickname cache is part of the outlook functionality. When they moved it serverside with the roaming autocomplete it's supposed do it's own housekeeping, though honestly I've not had enough users that use Outlook 2010 and then go through a migration to really get a feel for how well it works.

Linux Nazi fucked around with this message at Jun 9, 2011 around 14:45

Moey
Oct 22, 2010



LoKout posted:

If you delete the cache and users aren't using Outlook 2007 or newer they will think their address book is gone.

I can attest to this. Lousy users.

adaz
Mar 7, 2009



Linux Nazi posted:

You can't really blame exchange here, it is really only "at fault" for clients that support "roaming autocomplete lists", which currently is just Outlook 2010, and maybe the latest version for Macs.

The nickname cache is part of the outlook functionality. When they moved it serverside with the roaming autocomplete it's supposed do it's own housekeeping, though honestly I've not had enough users that use Outlook 2010 and then go through a migration to really get a feel for how well it works.

This is true, it's not really exchange's fault so much as outlook, and I am happy they seem to have finally fixed it in 2010. I just started using 2010 a month or so back and, so far, the roaming autocomplete seems to be working as advertised. We shall see! It'll certainly be nicer for users so that they don't "LOSE ALL MY ADDRESSES!!!" every time they get a new machine/get reimaged/moved computers.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Caged
May 21, 2004

Tune in and turn on to the ultimate digital media experience!


I still wish it just did a Gmail and by default auto-populated the address book with people you send email to that aren't listed in the GAL. Then the people who know how to use complex software such as a mail client can turn it off if they want.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«46 »