Number of PS in first storage group - Microsoft Exchange |
- Number of PS in first storage group
- Email is delivered and then automatically marked as "read"
- Front end exchange to Interscan
- Transport Rules
- Information Store unexpectedly stopping
- MI5 Persecution: Fitted up 26/4/96 (275)
- OWA authentication issue
- ASP.net problem
- Exchange System Manager help and IE7
- Affects of Large Mailbox Sizes
- Free/Busy Information problem
- Can't Deliver Message to a Particular Domain
- Preventing Exchange from messing up multipart/alternative messages
- Event ID: 8510; Cat.: MTA Connections; Source: MSExchangeIS Mailbo
| Number of PS in first storage group Posted: 21 Aug 2007 06:29 PM PDT 5 stores max per SG in Enterprise, with a total of 4 SG's available, not counting the RSG. This gives 20 production databases at your whim. Oliver |
| Email is delivered and then automatically marked as "read" Posted: 21 Aug 2007 01:14 PM PDT Hi Ed, Thank you for responding. No Blackberry's or anything wireless. I did neglect to mention a third machine that is set up to get mail through POP. It is set to "leave a copy on the server". Thanks for your help. |
| Front end exchange to Interscan Posted: 20 Aug 2007 12:16 PM PDT It sounds like you're properly configured, then. -- Ed Crowley MVP - Exchange "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!" "Spechty" <microsoft.com> wrote in message news:com... |
| Posted: 20 Aug 2007 10:46 AM PDT > Having said that, modifying SCLs through Transport Rules may not have the Ignore that - it does work based on Transport Rules (as well). -- Bharat Suneja MVP - Exchange www.zenprise.com NEW blog location: exchangepedia.com/blog ---------------------------------------------- "Bharat Suneja [MVP]" <org> wrote in message news:phx.gbl... |
| Information Store unexpectedly stopping Posted: 20 Aug 2007 09:00 AM PDT Thank you John, it would appear that was the problem - we've now upped the storage limit thanks again James. "John Oliver, Jr. [MVP]" wrote: |
| MI5 Persecution: Fitted up 26/4/96 (275) Posted: 19 Aug 2007 09:30 AM PDT Subject: Re: MI5? Please can someone explain what's going on here? Newsgroups: uk.misc References: <4l1khm$hacktic.nl> <4l2lhj$shef.ac.uk> Organization: Toronto Free-Net Distribution: David Stretch (ac.uk) wrote: : In article <hotch.demon.co.uk>, : Iain L M Hotchkies <demon.co.uk> wrote: : >The (remote) possibility remains that 'Mike Corley' is either : >not schizophrenic (but is 'pretending' to be so) or 'he' is : >a product of a number of persons (?psychology students). : Given other ways in which I have seen people exploit some of The Internet's : capabilities to disrupt or indulge in sophistry, or to exploit a medium : that resembles speech without the non-verbal and intonation cues, etc : as a means of denigrating others, I question your use, albeit in quotes, : of the word "remote". I'm not saying it isn't remote and therefore it is : great, I'm just saying that I don't think we can easily classify it as : remote, moderate, or great. I think you can build up quite a good picture based on what someone says and on their posting patterns. I don't think "The Internet" (capitals, no less) is as opaque a medium as you make it out to be. : It is not easy to determine the validity of all information on The : Internet without making use of extra supplementary information. : We do have the problem, pointed out by someone else, of the possibly : "too perfect" textbook characteristics of what is being posted. I explained that one, but I don't mind explaining it again (you don't mind having it explained again to you, do you now?). The reason my "symptoms" are such a perfect fit to the textbook is because the people causing the campaign "fitted me up" in such a way that what they did would resemble the symptoms of schizophrenia. Hence TV, radio, other media, people in the streets etc. By a fortunate coincidence (for them) these mthods of harassment are the ones which offer easiest channels of access (for them). It's really quite neat. All it takes is for people to start believing that the "symptoms" aren't symptoms but reality, though, and the house of cards collapses in a heap. And there are _lots_ of people now who knoiw full well what has gone on. : If harrassment by email, etc, has happened by someone out of the country, : can a complaint be made that results in arrest or whatever upon that : person's entry into the country? An interesting point which Mike may be : able to inform us about, as he's said he will be in the UK in a few weeks : time. Picture the scene at the airport; "I arrest you for being Mike Corley and mailbombing people" "But my name isn't Corley. Who he? Mailbombing isn't illegal is it? You'd have to lock up a lot of people if sending annoying email was a crime" "Er....." : -- : David Stretch: Greenwood Institute of Child Health, Univ. of Leicester, UK. : ac.uk Phone:+44 (0)116-254-6100 Fax:+44 (0)116-254-4127 ================================================== ====================== : context-free parts of articles, conversations and things-on-the-TV and : assume they are meant for you. Mike, this is called paranoia. But that's the way real abuse works, too. People interject words and phrases into what they say which they know will have meaning for the listener. And sometimes, they make it obvious. The very first evening of my job in Oxford, we went for a drink with the technical director, and a couple of other employees. The TD said in an "as-if" aside to one of the others, "Is this the bloke who's been on TV?" (he said it directly in front of me, and obviously meant mke to hear him saying it). The other person replied, "Yes, I think so". I think the subtext of what the TD said was "Why are they bothering with him? He's so insignificant, why would they possibly want to spend the resources going after him and putting all that expensive technology in his home, when there must be much better targets?". The Technical Director was given to sometimes disrespecting people, you see, and in my case he couldn't see the point of anyone expending money on harassing me. ================================================== ================== Subject: Re: Treatment of Schizophrenia Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics,alt.politics.british Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.politics,alt.politics.british References: <penet.fi> <4lge6r$ox.ac.uk> Organization: Toronto Free-Net Distribution: Illtud Daniel (ox.ac.uk) wrote: : Probably 'cos you come across as reasoned & articulate, it's a pity : about the other stuff :) Veracity is so unreasonable. : >>pps. You should still see a doc again Mike. : > : >Doing so. Trouble is, all this mental-illness stuff provides camouflage : >for the harassment, which is real. It alows people who otherwise would : >consider the harassment seriously to disregard it. It makes conversations : >with a lawyer or police brief when otherwise it would merit discussion. : The point is that there are two possibilities happening here- : 1. There's a large conspiracy of people out to get you, for no : other reason than that they have the means to do so, and that : it involves a lot of the Media & a proportion of the public : 2. You (who admit to having some headspace problems) are suffering : from acute paranoid schizophrenia. : Possibility #1 is _possible_, but would be unprecendented (OTOH, : how would we know?), unfeasible, and many other things beginning : with _un_ which I can't think of at the moment. Besides, if there : was something going on, chances are some of us here would know : about it, and I'm convinced that nobody does. "Unprecedented" hits the nail on the head. It _is_ unprecedented, but we have only just reached the technical stage at which it is feasible, and we know video-spying is done to other people (NB the Diana-Hewitt episode) and is a routine tool of security agencies. Perhaps what is unprecedented is not the technical side, but the social manipulation of many people by a concealed element in what other countries would be called the secret police. The most disturbing element is the degree to which people allow themselves to be unquestioningly manipulated by an evil element within the state. 275 -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
| Posted: 17 Aug 2007 09:38 AM PDT Mark, as long as not plain text is alright. SSL would be fine and where can i learn how to setup SSL authentication ? Daniel "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <org> wrote in message news:com... |
| Posted: 15 Aug 2007 05:40 AM PDT Hi, why does exchange 2003 does not detect asp.net ? Daniel "Thierry Frache" <msftlab.info> wrote in message news:phx.gbl... |
| Exchange System Manager help and IE7 Posted: 14 Aug 2007 09:20 PM PDT I believe there was a bug filed on this and it was fixed. -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Dgoldman http://blogs.msdn.com/dgoldman Download OABInteg (http://gotdotnet.com/Community/UserSamples/Download.aspx?SampleGuid=A2338E73-F521-4071-9B1D-AAF49C346ACD) "Massimo" <it> wrote in message news:phx.gbl... |
| Affects of Large Mailbox Sizes Posted: 14 Aug 2007 11:22 AM PDT In "Optimizing Storage for Exchange Server 2003" the following information concerning the impact of mailbox sizes is presented on page 21: Outlook Cached Mode Outlook Online Mode Inbox Size 1.0 IOPS 1.0 IOPS 10,000 Items - 500MB 1.0 IOPS 1.25 IOPS 20,000 Items - 1Gb 1.0 IOPS 1.75 IOPS 40,000 Items - 2GB From this, we can ascertain that as the mailbox size increases, the read IO activity against the databse increases. It doesn't go away if you use cached mode, it's merely shifted to the client workstation. Independent of a decision on your management's part to impose size limits, THERE IS A LIMIT. If you hit the logical size limit of 75GB for Exchange Standard or SBS, it will be painful. If you hit the physical size limit of the disk on which your data resises, it will be intensely painful. Without size limits of some sort, you cannot effectively size storage for exchange, and are doomed to a downward death spiral as you constantly chanse the performance issue of the moment. What can you do? Start by reading "optimizing storage for Exchange Server 2003". Collect perfom data from your environment watching RPC and physical disk latency. Create a mailbox recipient policy in report only mode and monitor mailbox sizes. Use Exmon to monitor statistics per client. In short, use the MS recommendations in conjuction with data you collect to support the need for limits. John "Ron" <microsoft.com> wrote in message news:com... |
| Posted: 14 Aug 2007 12:46 AM PDT hi! thanks for the answer. yes, i tried this solution. yesterday in the evening i tried another one. i exported the files from a mailbox to a pst-file. then i deleted the mailbox and created it new. after that i imported the pst-file. and now it works.... but there has to be another solutione....?!?!? "Leif Pedersen [ MVP]" wrote: |
| Can't Deliver Message to a Particular Domain Posted: 13 Aug 2007 11:58 AM PDT "Message transferred to barracuda.net-xcellence.com through SMTP" and "This message was rejected due to the current administrative policy by The message was rejected by barracuda on the destination. You might ask the adminstrator of the destination why. Barracuda is a spam filter. You've likely violated some rule on the device. John "Ron" <microsoft.com> wrote in message news:com... |
| Preventing Exchange from messing up multipart/alternative messages Posted: 10 Aug 2007 04:37 PM PDT Does using Unix all day long have this effect on people? Jeeez.... Go easy on coffee, would ya? Dmitry Streblechenko (MVP) http://www.dimastr.com/ OutlookSpy - Outlook, CDO and MAPI Developer Tool "Mikhail Teterin" <usenet+algebra.com> wrote in message news:net... |
| Event ID: 8510; Cat.: MTA Connections; Source: MSExchangeIS Mailbo Posted: 07 Aug 2007 08:20 AM PDT Hello Matteo, Problem solved! Thank you very much. Regards Stephan "Matteo Cilloni" wrote: |
| You are subscribed to email updates from TextNData Forums - Microsoft Exchange To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
