|
Yes, the trial would work. While it is a good idea not to mess around with production, recovery groups are designed for exactly that. Should not really cause any problems. What version of Exchange is it? I don't know about 2007/2010, but on 2003 the type of restoring you are talking about can be a pain in the rear end, even if the database isn't corrupt.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
^^^ I believe he said 2010, and yeah dealing with recovery databases in 2010 / 2007 is far better streamlined than it was in 2003. slartibartfast posted:Thanks, that's good to know. You can absolutely sandbox it. I would recommend doing so if you have an environment already configured, or are willing to take a moment and do it. You could just build a quicky 2008 R2 DC VM, install Exchange with all 3 roles right on that VM, and perform the recovery that way. Afterwords you can just dump the data out to PST files using an outlook client on the sandbox network, and use an outlook client on the live network to import the data.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
Yeah, it's 2010. I'm currently downloading the trial VHD and will build a sandbox tonight. I'll report back when I get stuck again. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
xtothez posted:The change has to replicate to a DC on the same site as the Edge Server handling the external mail. This should take 15mins or less if your AD sites are well-planned.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:
Actually you can export and import PSTs directly in Exchange 2010, no need for Outlook
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
nzspambot posted:Actually you can export and import PSTs directly in Exchange 2010, no need for Outlook Ha, you know I remember when the export-mailbox role was put in 2007 it required all manner of conditions, like Outlook to be installed, and could only be ran on a 32bit management console. So I just never used it. Reading now, guess they changed this in 2010 SP1, pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Quick question for you guys. We have a bunch of resource mailboxes on Exchange 2007 SP3. When someone leaves the organization and they've scheduled an appointment on those mailboxes they appointments are not deleted when their exchange/ad account is deleted. Is there a way to go through and prune these now bogus appointments using powershell or something? Currently one of our secretaries does it and I figured their has to be a better way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:Ha, you know I remember when the export-mailbox role was put in 2007 it required all manner of conditions, like Outlook to be installed, and could only be ran on a 32bit management console. So I just never used it. Oh it is nice, used it before, the only hassle is adding yourself to a hidden group
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
Anyone good with shared mailboxes in Exchange 2007? I'm a total newbie, but managed to get it working perfectly except for one problem: When a user does a "send on behalf of (the shared mailbox)" the sent item does not get put in the shared mailbox's sent folder. When composing a message, there is an option to "save sent item to..." but selecting the shared mailbox's sent folder doesn't help and through screwing around I've even had it give an error message to the effect "you don't have permission to use this folder." The way it's setup now has a security group attached to the shared mailbox in exchange, and then the user added to the security group. The users exchange Outlook profile then has the shared mailbox added in their "add additional mailbox" option. Any ideas would be helpful or if there's way better way better way to go about setting this up, please let me know!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Italy's Chicken posted:Anyone good with shared mailboxes in Exchange 2007? I'm a total newbie, but managed to get it working perfectly except for one problem: When a user does a "send on behalf of (the shared mailbox)" the sent item does not get put in the shared mailbox's sent folder. When composing a message, there is an option to "save sent item to..." but selecting the shared mailbox's sent folder doesn't help and through screwing around I've even had it give an error message to the effect "you don't have permission to use this folder." This has always been One of Those Things that annoy some users. Technically, this is by design. The user sending 'as' the shared mailbox is actually sending it from their mailbox, even though they have the shared mailbox also open in outlook. So the sent item is delivered into that user's sent items. Easily corrected with an outlook rule, but it just doesn't come up a whole lot so I've never explored other options of better managing this behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Italy's Chicken posted:Anyone good with shared mailboxes in Exchange 2007? I'm a total newbie, but managed to get it working perfectly except for one problem: When a user does a "send on behalf of (the shared mailbox)" the sent item does not get put in the shared mailbox's sent folder. When composing a message, there is an option to "save sent item to..." but selecting the shared mailbox's sent folder doesn't help and through screwing around I've even had it give an error message to the effect "you don't have permission to use this folder." This will probably fix you up: http://www.msoutlook.info/question/278 I've used these instructions for a couple people, and seems to work fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
JBark posted:This will probably fix you up:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
Italy's Chicken posted:Thanks, that's almost a fix for my environment. It requires cached exchange mode to work, which we have disabled because it introduced all kinds of other strange problems. drat Microsoft, why is Outlook such a pain in the rear end? Cached mode should almost always be deployed and really only disabled short-term in instances where you need to troubleshoot something. If it's causing problems then you got bigger problems to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:Cached mode should almost always be deployed and really only disabled short-term in instances where you need to troubleshoot something. If it's causing problems then you got bigger problems to worry about. You have a whitepaper or best practice for that? We run all our clients with caches mode disabled and I'd like to see the over/under on why turning it on is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
Funny, I had a problem this morning with my bosses outlook and disabled cached mode and the problem went away. I have a feeling ESET is to blame but I'm still trying to figure things out. Basically, Outlook sat there for about 30 minutes and wouldn't update while his Blackberry was getting email all the time. Obviously, I'm going to have to use it for our remote offices, but I'm considering disabling it here in the main office where the server is, if this problem keeps up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:09
|
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:Funny, I had a problem this morning with my bosses outlook and disabled cached mode and the problem went away. I have a feeling ESET is to blame but I'm still trying to figure things out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Nebulis01 posted:You have a whitepaper or best practice for that? We run all our clients with caches mode disabled and I'd like to see the over/under on why turning it on is a good thing. 1. It's a tremendous performance consideration. Having a plethora of users navigate their mail stores against live servers rather than locally cached copies that sync in a metered way can have a pretty huge impact on both the client access and mailbox servers. 2. It's required for indexing for things like instant search. You also can't realistically use RPC over HTTP / Outlook anywhere without it. 3. Most configuration considerations assume that caching is enabled. See the issue with wanting to deploy the above configuration change. Making sure the local OST stores remain healthy, and that OAB generation / deployment is sane can suck, but it's just part of the reality of dealing with managed mail in Exchange. I don't know if I hate a whitepaper I can dig up on best practices, but it's just one of those things that is always assumed. LmaoTheKid posted:Funny, I had a problem this morning with my bosses outlook and disabled cached mode and the problem went away. I have a feeling ESET is to blame but I'm still trying to figure things out. This is typical of a corrupt OST file. Deleting it should remedy the problem. A huge part of keeping outlook clients healthy is using sane limits on mailbox quotas and appropriate online archiving. That is, don't have users with 15GB of e-mail in their mailstore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Nebulis01 posted:You have a whitepaper or best practice for that? We run all our clients with caches mode disabled and I'd like to see the over/under on why turning it on is a good thing. In my experience it makes the client much more responsive. With so many exchange implementations going hosted it's pretty much required anyway, you don't want outlook in online mode over a WAN/internet link. I do turn off download shared folders sometimes, just so the user isn't caching every single calendar they've ever opened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
quote:Did you try re-enabling it after disabling it? When you disable it, the .ost file is deleted which, if it becomes corrupt, can cause the exact issues you were seeing. Just re-enabling it forces it to recreate that file and usually solves the problem. I just left it. He was freaking out and I had just gotten in. I might sneak in and reenable it one day but for now I'm just going to leave it alone. He's the only one in the office who's connecting like this and everyone else is fine with cached mode turned on. quote:A huge part of keeping outlook clients healthy is using sane limits on mailbox quotas and appropriate online archiving. That is, don't have users with 15GB of e-mail in their mailstore. Amen brother. Unfortunately, I'm the only person in my company who does IT and I wear many hats. I've bitched and moaned that we need an archiving feature but my boss just keeps putting it on the back burner. The other problem is, my users just use outlook like it's a goddamn filing system and some of them have gigantic mailboxes. The nature of our buisness (fashion) means a lot of people send large attatchments (we limit to 20 megs incoming) and when I tell them to use our FTP, they just go blank. Then they save said emails in subfolders and so on and so forth. I'm about 2 weeks away from going BOFH and going into their mailboxes and deleting large emails, because I'm sick and tired of people not wanting to listen. Quotas are coming, I just don't have the time to implement them right now. But when they do I can't wait to hear the kicking and screaming 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
The only exception is Citrix / Terminal Services where you should not be using cached mode. We are pretty draconian with our email limits. The largest mailbox is 2GB and most users are set to 400MB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:The only exception is Citrix / Terminal Services where you should not be using cached mode. We are pretty draconian with our email limits. The largest mailbox is 2GB and most users are set to 400MB. As a general rule, yeah. But honestly it depends on your deployment, how prone to changes with your remote users you are, what type of storage you have configured etc. http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=15238 That isn't the most technical document, but it does speak to how you should weigh disk I/O vs. network utilization, and talks about what they call "steady state" outlook vs. new deployments and the impact they have.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. Always interested in more information regarding RDS / VDI.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Appreciate the link and input. We've got the hardware behind it to leave it in online but good to know if we move to to a more mobile workforce it becomes a consideration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Hey so what's up with this: in Exchange 2010, I have a user who has "full access permission" to a few mailboxes. They all show up in Outlook and she can email from them, and usually the mail she sends goes into her own personal sent items. However, one of the mailboxes is storing the sent items in that mailbox's sent items. How do I control this behavior? I tried both adding the mailbox to her Outlook profile via Account Settings->Advanced->Mailboxes, and by straight up adding it as a new Exchange mailbox in the existing profile. Doesn't seem to make a difference there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
I think it defaults to the Sent Items folder of the mailbox you're in when you hit 'New Message' - is that the difference?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Mierdaan posted:I think it defaults to the Sent Items folder of the mailbox you're in when you hit 'New Message' - is that the difference? That's not what I'm seeing unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
I suppose I should have done more thorough testing and found out earlier that Exchange 2010 doesn't support Outlook 2000. Whoops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Nevergirls posted:Hey so what's up with this: in Exchange 2010, I have a user who has "full access permission" to a few mailboxes. They all show up in Outlook and she can email from them, and usually the mail she sends goes into her own personal sent items. However, one of the mailboxes is storing the sent items in that mailbox's sent items. How do I control this behavior? I tried both adding the mailbox to her Outlook profile via Account Settings->Advanced->Mailboxes, and by straight up adding it as a new Exchange mailbox in the existing profile. Doesn't seem to make a difference there. You can change that behavior with a registry hack: http://www.andrewparisio.com/2012/02/outlook-sent-and-deleted-items-hack.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2012 07:42
|
|
|
citywok posted:You can change that behavior with a registry hack: http://www.andrewparisio.com/2012/02/outlook-sent-and-deleted-items-hack.html Rock and roll. I'll try this next week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
One of the (many) parts of my new job is L2 Exchange support. We've got a PowerShell script that creates distribution groups, and does a bunch of settings changes, mainly for the sake of consistency. When it creates a new DG, that DG has three email addresses - listname@domain.com, listname@sub1.domain.com, and listname@sub2.domain.com. The first of these actually causes problems. I can limit the nuisance by changing the list's PrimarySmtpAddress, but the bogus address still is there, lying in wait to make something go haywire months from now. This code looks like it should work: code:So, how should I go about removing an address from a DG, short of popping open the GUI?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:One of the (many) parts of my new job is L2 Exchange support. We've got a PowerShell script that creates distribution groups, and does a bunch of settings changes, mainly for the sake of consistency. Quick and dirty like? Set-DistributionGroup -EmailAdressPolicyEnabled:$False I assume it's being populated via one of the policy templates, if you don't block the inheritance, then it's going to try and confirm to that policy. Try creating a new e-mail address policy to use for distribution groups, see here for filterable parameters, but I would imagine you just need to set the RecipientType for MailUniversalDistributionGroup and then structure the template however you like, including only the domains that you want to use. e: Your script only seems to add addresses to the DG, try something like: code:Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
EmailAddressPolicyEnabled gets set to False before we get to my example. That's what lets me change the PrimarySmtpAddress on the DG, but it still doesn't let me programmatically remove the unwanted address. I've also tried this slightly more wacky (complicated) way of removing an address, again by blowing away everything: code:Even if this is a policy issue, I can't create new policies (and, having disabled policies before, I don't think that's the issue in any event). Any other ideas? Edit: I also tried pulling in the current object, and doing $myAddrs.Remove(); this also fails. Seriously, is there no way to do this without the GUI? Another Edit: Hm. you can do it another way and it finally works! code:Weird Uncle Dave fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
I have the strangest issue with two of my Exchange 2010 deployments, two different, unrelated companies - same issue for both companies. The scenario for both companies: Company who has a brand spanking new domain, brand spanking new Exchange 2010 SP2 server. Never had a domain or even tech infrastructure prior to this setup. This company does a bunch of work with Chinese companies. When replying to an email from one of these companies based out of Shanghai, the reply-to addresses show up like: code:Here is a screenshot of an Outlook 2007 client with the issue, although it happens in OWA, Outlook 2010, on phones, etc.  The company had no issues with this prior to Exchange (they were on a POP3 + Outlook setup), their mail records have not changed, etc. I am at a loss as to what this could be - I've installed all the language packs I could for both the clients and Exchange 2010. Anyone ever see something like this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Weird Uncle Dave posted:Another Edit: Hm. you can do it another way and it finally works! I was going to say, normally I script changes to lengthy lists like that and then define the "-property $variable" like you did here, rather than pipe it in as you were doing above. I think it should work the other say, since the $myList object has an EmailAddresses property assigned to it, I just never do it that way. There's a lot about powershell I am still learning. Gyshall posted:I am at a loss as to what this could be - I've installed all the language packs I could for both the clients and Exchange 2010. Anyone ever see something like this? My questions would be 1. does the mail submit correctly anyways? and 2. What does the mail header look like? Blame Pyrrhus fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Mar 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Here are the headers, with email addresses et al redacted:code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
I think I have seen some people mention similar things, but not exactly what I am looking for. Does anyone know of a product that helps with sharing mailboxes? Basically, we have staff that when out of the office, they want someone watching their mailbox. HR usually tells us "so and so is going to be out today, have so and so cover their email." Normally I would say use a buddy system or something but that does not really work for us. Ideally I would want something that I could give to 2-3 core HR staff so they could just click "give access to so and so until tomorrow at 5pm". Then the person would just have to use Open to see the other users Inbox, or bonus points if it uses a plugin and makes it even easier. We have Exchange 2003 and Outlook 2003. Anyone use anything similar to what I'm talking about? [Edit: Basically, what I think I am looking for is something that allows approved, non-IT staff the ability to grant Delegate access of an approved set of mailboxes to anyone. Bonus points if it has logging.] Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Mar 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 14:16
|
|
|
I am unfortunately the IT guy in our building because "he knows a lot of computers!" and they fired their real IT guy, the one who set everything up. I am supposed to set up a new laptop to access a users exchange email from outside the office. I am happy to do this through IMAP/POP3 or Exchange but I cant get it to work in outlook. for the record OWA/Web Access works just fine. Obviously there is some combination of domain/user etc that I am messing up. Where would I be able to look on the exchange server or elsewhere to find out what the correct settings are? I have complete access to our servers including active directory and the system setup gui thing. Sorry, I know my question is a little vague but my knowledge of this stuff is about a 1.3/10
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 14:30
|
|
|
Naes posted:I am unfortunately the IT guy in our building because "he knows a lot of computers!" and they fired their real IT guy, the one who set everything up. You should use Outlook Anywhere. If you're on Exchange 2007 or greater it's very easy to set up. If you're on Exchange 2003 you can still do it, it's just a little more involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
EDIT: Well I did a bit of reading and it says that I need to enable Outlook Anywhere for the exchange account on the PC I want to use it on, only problem is there is no exchange account on that laptop. I have been TRYING to add the exchange account but it never adds, no matter what combination of domain/server etc I try. So basically, I can't use outlook anywhere until the account is added to the computer?? Naes fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Naes posted:EDIT: Well I did a bit of reading and it says that I need to enable Outlook Anywhere for the exchange account on the PC I want to use it on, only problem is there is no exchange account on that laptop. I have been TRYING to add the exchange account but it never adds, no matter what combination of domain/server etc I try. So basically, I can't use outlook anywhere until the account is added to the computer?? What version of outlook and exchange are you using?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2012 15:03
|
|