|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
Even if I cannot assist with the editing, thank you for these "months of lunches" series.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
Nebulis01 posted:Public folders are back with a vengeance in Exchange 2013. It's even got it's own role. They listened to the community for a change Thats great. I know they wanted to get away from public folders, but sharepoint (even sharepoint lite) is too much to commit to.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Saw this pop up reguarding exchange 2013. If you're discussing deploying this, have a loook http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2013/01/06/exchange-server-2013-gotchas.aspx
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
You're going to need to dip into Group policy and enforce it, even on the ones you've already setup. Managing outlook should be done via GPOs, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
What kind of storage are you using in your virtualized exchange deployment on Hyper-v hosts? For example, VHDs, iscsi mounted at the host, or iscsi in the VM? I typically mount at the host for my volumes and attach as scsi hotdisks, but could I run exchange stores in VHDs? I have a userbase of about 200 or so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
If you use the knowledge to apply to your day to day deployment and managing of a production exchange instance, sure. The allure of being able to bang about a live demo exchange environment has its benefits. However, if it's for you and you alone and you have a spare mac laying around, OS X Mail looks to be a simpler operation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 09:46
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:Don't go overboard and upgrade to PS3.0, because E2010 doesn't like that! They fixed this in a rollup. You can deploy 3.0 again (if you're on SP3+the rollup). However, now they're doing a warning to not roll out PS 4.0 to all non-server platforms (EXC,sharepoint). All of my wut.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2012/12/14/windows-management-framework-3-0-on-exchange-2007-and-exchange-2010.aspx Bright yellow box at the top. My memory was hazy and it was just in SP3.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
That is correct. On the server and administration side you'll get all the features of 3.0, but managing exchange will be 2.0.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
Pretty sure thats an active directory change and can be audited that way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
You should really enable the advance logging to have a record of all DS changes. Especially if people in the organization can slip in to the other exchange roles (Discovery management for one).
incoherent fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Nov 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
Mierdaan posted:If that's too pricey, look into GFI MailArchiver. That's what we use, just pulling right from a journaling mailbox into read-only (SQL-backed) Archive Stores based on quarter. You can feed your PSTs back into the journal mailbox to populate historical data - ask me about loading 7 years worth of historical email in from PSTs written to CDs/DVDs! I pushed really, really hard to get GFI deployed. We're deploying a much more expensive barracuda. GFI can get pricy as well, especially if you need to get another copy of SQL deployed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
I would verify in OWA (outlook web access) by going to the upper right, click their name, open other mailbox, and having them swap to that user they can send privileges as. You'll never need to dive into exchange logs...ever. Then if that works (as in you can see the other users mailbox) make sure you're using the options-> Show fields-> FROM and explicitly saying the send as users email address. You may need to google the Powershell commands to give a user explicit send as and full rights privileges.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Are Rackspace's hosted exchange upgrade migrations as transparent as they say? I suspect they don't want to implement a migration patch for the public folders (Public folder implementation has changed greatly for 2013) and they can upsell another license in the form of a shared mailbox. Exchange 2013 supports public folders just fine, and will support for quite a while.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
Right from microsofts own Hosted/multi tenant documentation for Exchange 2013.quote:• Public Folders – If you choose to provide public folders to your tenants you should create a top level folder for each tenant, and apply the appropriate security to ensure only the members of each tenant can access it. If rackspace is basically re selling exchange online (which is different), the exchange team just provided the steps to migrate public folders. However their stance on the public folder is different than what microsoft is saying exchange 2013 can do. I still believe they have a custom deployment that would prevent public folder usage and migration. ref: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=36790 ref: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=39941
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:So is the answer you're... not backing up? You tack the archive option onto your solution (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/microsoft-exchange-online-archiving-archiving-email-FX103763589.aspx).
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
MigrationWiz https://www.bittitan.com/products/migrationwiz/types
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
I'd give them a 1 year on the shared mailbox, then export to pst to archive. Or tell your boss to loving man up and get an archiver.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Goddamn powershell is awesome. (Already use a similar cmdlet for my own scripts) edit: REMEMBER to give the trusted exchange group (or similarly worded group) full R/W to that network share.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Ticket closed: Advise user against practice, still assisted diligently.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Exchange megathread: I think I remove all the things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
The jump from exchange 2010 to 2013 will literally put you in new-user mode. The middling administration toolkit that was the EMC is gone and now there is Exchange Control Panel (light touch administration, new users and lists your familiar with) and Exchange Management Console (provisioning stores, managing public folders).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Don't worry, I have a exchange 2003 and a loving blackberry deployment i've been ignoring/avoiding since moving to 2010. I'm gonna be looking to remove a lotta things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
Put that DB on the cheapest hard drive you can find, hold it for a year, and then purge. Everyone always misses something even with the most perfect, "down to the checkbox" migration. Also, precious snowflakes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Enterprise CAL licensing, for one. There are some serious gotchas for 2010 in terms of true 100% legal compliance that are fixed in 2013. e: Oh and the outlook version that is needed. gently caress that. incoherent fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Train them on OWA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Everything i've seen (and deployed) was a read-only via ical and editing/managing was done in OWA/outlook. Maybe the the EA was confused about the backend (did they say the previous company was running "google exchange 2007"?).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
You think you've seen it all.....then someone blows your expectation away. I've got good money on it being outlook 2003.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
WS-Management may mean that remote services is not enabled. Make sure the services are online.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the skeleton crew of QA for RUs would have a checkbox that says "outlook stops connecting".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Migrationwiz! https://www.bittitan.com/products/migrationwiz/mailbox-migration
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Oh man I thought you were doing migration, not that weird rear end configuration.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Filthy Lucre posted:Enough to be able tell if we're using the lovely POP3 server or not, unfortunately. That was actually my first thought on how to handle this. Tickets are down this month! check to see if we've stopped using our messages messaging solution!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Filthy Lucre posted:The guy that sold our CEO the system has access to it and he's the type of sperg who would check to see if it's being used. I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't reading some of the emails, as well. This is where you devise an elaborate trap to catch him in the act. This situation is so hosed tho.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
The problem with public folders is microsoft shitted on the concept, stagnated on features, declared it dead, declared it undead , and gave it legitimate first class scalable technology update in 2013/o365. 2007 and 2010 had to drag 2003 concepts of high availability public folders around like an albatross when the mailbox databases got really useful cluster and HA features. (Fun fact: "migrating public folders" is an anagram for gently caress THIS poo poo) You're going to have a much better experience with features that public folder had in a legit sharepoint online instance. Even moving back and forth from o365 and sharepoint is a seamless process. Take ownership of that hellish 2007/2010 setup, put two bucks in that thing, and get everyone to the cloud. And this is from a dude who admins a onprem. incoherent fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:Shared Mailboxes are still hands down better than public folders, imo. I've been rolling this out to great effect. The only problem i've had is to tell people to "send from", and you need to powershell to keep a copy of the sent item in the users AND shared mailbox. incoherent fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
That does sound sensible. However A VERY BIG WORD OF WARNING: you're getting a free service and I would begin to set expectations that while this is an amazing free service support will be limited to non-existent. In other words: you're getting what you paid for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
snackcakes posted:Holy crap I can't believe I didn't know about this cmdlet. I have just been logging into their webmail when I know their password or grant myself full access to the mailbox when I don't.  don't do that. Impersonate from the exchange owa interface. Grant yourself the proper rights and fix their account. set-mailboxautoreplyconfiguration needs the similar permissions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 18:07 |
|
|
There is a way, but it's not pretty. https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa996806%28v=exchg.150%29.aspx
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 05:17
|
|