|
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.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
angry armadillo posted:That is the easy bit - how do you decide that 'certain level' 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 02:27
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 18:55
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:15
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 20:44
|
|
|
The Fool posted:Originally posted in the ticket thread, but this is probably a better fit: 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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
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: Yes. I have had to do this before, and this was the only way I found to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 16:22
|
|
|
angry armadillo posted:So this seems like a reasonable thread to post this: 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. Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 17:09
|
|
)
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
What is the maximum size a PST should be before moving onto a fresh one?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 18:45
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:For Exchange? 0, nil, nada. If you are on Exchange, you should have OST files instead. 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"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 19:46
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 19:56
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 08:14
|
|
|
incoherent posted:
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 13:15
|
|
|
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 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Cuddly Coach posted:This may be a silly question and the answer evident once we finish rolling it out... 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/library/bb125178.aspx).
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
^^ 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
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
nevermind, think I got it using CSVDE ! learn something new every day
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
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).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
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).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
mindphlux posted:lol ok so 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. 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. Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 15:43
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
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. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 16:10
|
|
