|
Accounts need to be in the GAL for them to show up in Exchange permissions. You either have an issue with their account or with the GAL generation that's causing them not to show up. If some show up and others do not, their account is likely to blame. If none show up, the GAL generation is likely failing. There might be events to look at depending on your logging level. A common issue with Accounts is the "e-mail" field not matching the primary Exchange SMTP address. I usually copy/paste it from the Exchange address to the e-mail field to make sure - even if it looks exactly the same this will sometimes fix the problem. I'm not familiar with Exchange 2010, unfortunately, so some of this may have changed, but the ideas are the same.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The reason most people stop the services is because you don't know how long it will take to reboot otherwise. They should all stop successfully after some time, just be extremely patient with the shutdown prompt and process - never turn the box off manually. It can take 10+ minutes depending on what recently happened with the database and how much data it needs to commit/flush.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2011 02:53
|
|
|
The reverse DNS for your mail server isn't setup correctly. You'll need to fix that in order to send mail to them (and likely others).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
Mithra6 posted:So if their e-mail domain is "orange.org" I have to set the reverse DNS to resolve as that right? No, your domain needs to have a pointer record so it can be resolved from the IP address. That's the error their server is sending you. You said you recently changed your external IPs. That likely is the cause.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 05:25
|
|
|
Zubumafoo posted:I did a little experimenting with Gmail and IMAP, but it was slow as hell with Outlook. I didn't know Microsoft 365 was a thing, and I'll look into that. I've seen gMail's IMAP act really slow before, so I know where you're coming from. Especially with large mailboxes. I don't really know if Outlook is more to blame than gMail, though. MSBS comes with a somewhat limited version of Exchange built in. You'd have to configure it, which isn't super easy, but totally doable if you can read some well written documentation. Office 365 is cloud based Exchange. It might be faster than gMail due to the aforementioned reasons. It would use Outlook's Exchange support for connectivity, which is likely quite a bit more efficient than IMAP. The full suite contains the other Office apps as well. You could also use web-based Outlook with it and that would be fast, depending on your internet connection speed. Edit: Mithra6 isn't totally correct that backups are not necessary with Office 365. It would totally depend on your situation. Microsoft does redundancy and stuff for you, but user error could still screw you up. There is a deleted item retention built into Exchange/Office 365 (like a hidden deleted items folder that everything goes to for a little while), but things can still go wrong. Industry compliance may also require backups, if you're in that situation. LoKout fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Aug 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 03:30
|
|
|
Multiple accounts on the same Exchange mailbox is no problem with locally served Exchange, so I see no reason why putting it into the cloud would make a difference. It can sometimes get a bit messy with a lot of users (3-4+) on the same mailbox, as it doesn't always update the client with changes made on one of the other computers, so operations can occasionally fail (with fun error messages like "this message no longer exists"). Perhaps you can detail why multiple people need to access the mailbox simultaneously and we can provide some suggestions on how to improve that process. Perhaps a ruleset or designees to monitor the mailbox would be more appropriate, but that will depend on your use and needs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 04:26
|
|
|
Too small a company to have a receptionist or admin assistant? That seems like the perfect job for them to do all day, and have a backup or two in case of sick days/vacation. Is the email so time sensitive that it couldn't be delegated to check a few times a day or if someone calls about an email they sent? That doesn't seem likely. Email doesn't always need to mean instantaneously checked or replied to. It's a big time waster to check email whenever it comes in, as opposed to in a batch a few times a day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
MSDN covers pretty much everything. TechNet is a bit more restricted, but it does cover Windows Server and Exchange (if you have the TechNet Enterprise subscription). There is a trial of both Server and Exchange, so you can setup a test environment without any cost if you don't have MSDN or TechNet.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 03:25
|
|