|
GFI has been great for us so far. We have quite a few instances of it that we manage.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
You can import the PST with PowerShell as well. https://www.simple-talk.com/sysadmin/exchange/importing-psts-with-powershell-in-exchange-2010-sp1/
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:GFI Mail Archive has been pretty good, we have about twenty of them at various client locations and I've never run into any show-stopper problems. This has been out experience as well, with SOX compliant environments too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:The MSP I work for just sold a client an O365 migration and we are going to use SkyKick. What should I start reading up on? We use MigrationWiz all the time. Haven't used SkyKick but it can be much different. Put in the right information and go town.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Upgrade Outlook 2003 first. I don't think it is compatible with Exchange 2007 or higher server side suggested contacts.
Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 03:15 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
How much would it cost you by hand? We use MigrationWiz on every migration we do, but if it's POP and you only have a few mailboxes, it's not that time consuming to do by hand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
I just inherited a SharePoint 2003 server at work. Ugh. At least they're on Exchange 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Why would you not use Outlook Anywhere? As said above, it's exactly what this was designed for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
I haven't used it personally but from its reputation it's just fine. You should expect less than a day or two of downtime a year, including off-peak hours.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
I would double check to make sure the emails with that issue aren't been sent as Rich Text.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Seconding Mimecast.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Does anyone else find it surprising that this thread is so dead? I mean, it gets a few posts every couple of days. Is hosting Exchange locally dead and is O365 "easy enough" that no one discusses it? Or are there really that few SA dudes who admin Exchange servers?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
I could see that. I mean, it's not like we have a SCCM thread (afaik). It was more of a question for the tech field in general.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah, good luck with that. You're going to need it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
If it is virtual and the rest of your environment is virtual, have you tried Veeam?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
That's unfortunate. I have not used it but maybe add Unitrends Enterprise Backup to your list? It does both physical and virtual, so it may be useful during the transition.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Maneki Neko posted:Microsoft certainly has the most to lose in terms of the PR shitstorm that comes from losing someone's data. O365 certainly does have it's share of service interruptions, but I haven't heard any large scale horror stories of "MICROSOFT LOST ALL MY EMAIL", particularly compared to random 3rd party hoster. Ahh... I have definitely heard of O365 losing mailboxes full of data.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Move your DNS to AWS Route 53 so you don't have to deal with your ISP any time you want to make a change. Set the TTL to 60s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
You can. I guess it would depend on the ISP. I haven't had a problem with the major ones I've dealt with. https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/route-53-reverse-dns/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
ghostinmyshell posted:Today was fun. Got pulled into a meeting and told that we are migrating to o365... today. Ahh... why? That sounds beyond dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
That says March. And if you got that great of a deal you could pay for it and then migrate over a week or two. If your boss is that dumb find a new job.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
The database isn't going to shrink without an offline defrag. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
^^^somehow skipped over your last sentence. Guess we've had different experiences. Every time I've dealt with their support it has been mediocre at best. ^^^ Mimecast is great, but their support leaves something to be desired. Thankfully, you should rarely have to deal with them. I'd prefer Mimecast over any other spam filter or service available.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
It really depends on your company. Have you looked at just implementing email archiving? That's the easiest way (politically) to tackle the issue. Where do these users store "important" emails now? Can that be brought more into their workflow? In the legal industry it is common to have a document/case management software where case-related emails can go. If it's project-based work I'm sure the same logic applies.
Internet Explorer fucked around with this message at 16:39 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
My winning argument for Exchange mailbox size always involves RTO. Once you've run into a corrupt database or dealing with a restore you learn the value in keeping mailbox sizes sane. It all boils down to having management backing. If you don't have management backing there's an infinite number of technical arguments you'll lose because "this is how we've always done things." Password requirements? Two-factor authentication? Not having admin rights on your PCs / VDIs? Opening a ticket with Helpdesk instead of emailing / calling an individual? I try to fix the culture as much as I can. If it can't be changed, time to 
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
"We spent $X amount of dollars and Y amount of manhours on setting up this awesome infrastructure to reduce downtime. It was a huge priority for management to make sure our email environment is stable. Keeping your mailbox under control is the best thing you can do to help us meet that goal. Here is A, B, C you can do to keep your mailbox clean. If you have any further feedback I would bring it up with your supervisor / boss / management."
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
rotaryfun posted:Whoa I read the mailbox size limit and then the comment that it's draconian and I'm like... maybe we're behind the times. That would have been draconian 5 years ago. 85 Meg? How have your users not murdered you? Our send/receive is set to 20 to match Gmail, etc. We also use ShareFile so it will convert and attachment over 20 mb to a link.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Considering Exchange 2003 was like the first implementation of ActiveSync, I would say that's your problem. And, you know, how it's 13 years old and the concept of a smartphone barely existed at the time. That being said, I've never heard of your specific issue. I just can't imagine spending time troubleshooting when you should be spending time updating. If management doesn't like that answer, I'd tell them to stop being cheap fucks, but that's just me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Well, let's be realistic when we talk about "garbage ActiveSync" clients. They're probably not testing against Exchange 2003 and I can't really say I blame them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
It's a little unclear what you're asking and you've always seemed like a pretty sharp guy, so stop me if I'm wrong. Are you asking if you can delete a mailbox database that currently houses mailboxes, then move them to a new database? Because, no, obviously that will not work and will cause mayhem.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean I think you've posted about this before and got some responses. I don't know what industry you're in but I cannot imagine working anywhere where "missing all of my emails" for the entire company isn't a Resume Generating Event. Off the top of my head 1 - P2V the server. If it's already Virtual, then I have to wonder why we are having this conversation. 2 - Install some new drives and migrate the mailboxes to a new drive / mailbox database, then delete (or offline compress) the old database 3 - Implement email archiving and then offline compress the old database 4 - Install some new drives and move logs to another drive
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
MC Fruit Stripe posted:This isn't the company's Exchange server. I manage that for 30k users and that server actually does the thing it's supposed to do. This is just some piece of garbage in a closet. Not something you really need to be upset about. I prefaced my comment with a disclaimer because I vaguely remember the backstory and vaguely remember you not being a complete moron. If you ask about how to do something pretty crazy, people are going to ask you why to make sure you understand the ramifications of your actions. That's true pretty much anywhere, not just online and not just in technical circles. I mean, if you don't need the server, why not just offline/Office Space it? If you need it online for mail relay or whatever and the mailboxes are not important, delete them and shrink the database. Hopefully you can see why context is important. I don't think anyone, myself included, was being even remotely alpha-nerdy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Shot in the dark. Anyone seeing connection issues with Sprint blocking their ActiveSync / HTTP/S connections to their Exchange server? We received reports today that starting a few days ago our Sprint users starting having issue. Not just related to iPhone or Android. Works fine on any wireless connection. Mail apps break as well as browser connections. Didn't see any issue for DNS/tracert.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Sounds to me like it's time to switch to a signature/disclaimer software that works with O365.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Beefstorm posted:I usually skip right to calling when it comes to O365 stuff. They are much more effective when you can clearly describe the issue, as well as what you have attempted so far to fix it. That's... Not at all what he's talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Under the properties for the mailbox, then mailbox features, you can disable MAPI/POP3/IMAP4 and leave only Outlook Web App enabled. ActiveSync allows use on a mobile device.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Oh, dear. How not to handle
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
Why in the world would someone be using Bounce Address Tag Validation (BATV) in YTOOL2017?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
You either add it to your SPF record or use a proper ListServ that doesn't try to send as someone's domain that you don't own.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
In those cases I just offer to get in touch with the other sides IT and tell them that it's the year 2017 and doing what they're doing isn't acceptable. If they won't work to fix the problem I just explain to the end user that they are trying to impersonate us and due to security concerns we do not allow it. In Mimecast you have the ability to do spoof bypasses based on the Header or Envelope from. No idea in O365. At least it sounds like it gets delivered with a warning, with Mimecast it gets blocked completely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 14:19
|
|