|
Anyone have any insight into this sort of error? Event Type: Error Event Source: MSExchangeIS Event Category: General Event ID: 9667 Date: 12/23/2011 Time: 8:20:53 AM User: N/A Computer: SERVERNAME Description: Failed to create a new named property for database "First Storage Group\Mailbox Store (SERVERNAME)" because the number of named properties reached the quota limit (8192). User attempting to create the named property: "username" Named property GUID: 00020386-0000-0000-c000-000000000046 Named property name/id: "X-ACS-Spam-Tests" Exchange 2003 
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Thanks, I was looking for something along these lines. Everything I was finding was relating to similar problems in 2007.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
I need some enlightenment on Information Stores. More specifically: What are the advantages, disadvantages, or limitations when it comes to having one information store, or a few smaller ones? (Exch 2010) The IT company I work for has starting a hosted exchange service for some smaller companies we support. I am not the one who set it up or even manages it... I was just curious. As far as I can tell it's currently configured with almost all default settings. Is dumping all the mailboxes into "First Storage Group" acceptable in this situation? It's very unlikely there will be more than 250 mailboxes stored on this server. It just seems weird putting all these different companies mailboxes into the same store.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
Thanks everyone for the feedback on the Information Stores. Lots of good details to research! For the amount of usage this server will be getting it seems like one is more than enough. It will also simplify the backup process and won't eat up too much system resources.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
ICA posted:Not sure if this is the best place for this but here goes. https://login.live.com Sign in with your e-mail address and password. Once you're in, click on your name in the top right, choose Options. On the options page, click "Mail" on the left menu. Then click on "Email Forwarding" under the Managing your account section. Pretty self explanitory from here.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:all windows 7 <75 users, good to know any other opinions? I've moved a few small businesses (less than 30 mailboxes each) off their unreliable and dying on-site Exchange servers to Google Apps. However, in all cases they were using Exchange only for mail, contacts, and calendars, plus the syncing between devices. If that is all you really care about, then I would recommend it as alternative to Intermedia or 365. I have dealt with Intermedia some in the past. Not without some issues.. but they seemed competent and fixed stuff quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Sorry I posted to the wrong thread.
tjl fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
Frozen-Solid posted:What's the best practice for an Exchange Organization name? Does it even matter? I'm installing a brand new Exchange 2010 server in an otherwise vanilla Active Directory 2008 domain.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Corvettefisher posted:I am having one hell of a headache with Exchange 2007 SP3, My boss wants me to increase the max attachment size of files in OWA to 75MB.  Configuring your server is only half the equation. I can't think of a mail server (or MTA) in the world that would accept something that large... At least not any of the big names like Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, Apple, pretty much all ISPs globally, educational/gov, as well as companies with sensible attachment limits. Just to be sure I'm reading this correctly: You are trying to send a 20MB attachment from your Exchange environment to an @gmail account? Gmail will kick that back as it will likely exceed their 25MB limit once it's been MIME encoded. MIME adds filesize overhead, about 33% more... so 20MB expands to ~26MB in transit. Maybe the bounce looks like it's coming from your server... perhaps. But I'm thinking that Gmail is actually kicking it back. You simply cannot reliably send files that large to public mail servers. I think that upping your Exchange limits is the wrong solution to your attachment problem, and you should try and explain that to your boss. You are sending year-2013-sized files using a standard developed (and perpetually stuck in) 1992.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 08:04
|
|