Slashdot Mirror

Pretty sure you can adjust how much RAM Exchange 2007 sucks down, and that it sucks it down by design-- its called caching. In fact, a quick search turns up a number of articles explaining why Exchange 2007 behaves this way compared to 2003 (basically, to improve performance by minimizing disk reads-- ie cache), how it works (uses most unused memory, dynamically freeing RAM up if pressure to do so occurs-- see above link), and how you can limit the behavior (set msExchESEParamCacheSizeMax in ADSIEdit).

I mean, im all about bashing MS when they get something wrong, but throwing blame on them for using unused RAM in exactly the way its SUPPOSED to be used (caching on-disk data) is just silly.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/08/02/206012.aspx

http://www.msexchange.org/articles/Exchange-Memory-Allocation.html

That is *completely* incorrect. In Exchange 2003 prior to SP2, the limit for the mailbox store was 16 GB. In SP2 they upped that limit to 75 GB, which really is probably enough for most of the small organizations that probably just have a single server running Exchange Standard.

Here is a document about it, scroll down to the part where it says Licensed Database Size Limit. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa998066.aspx

In Exchange 2007, Standard Edition can have up to five mailbox stores in each of five storage groups. And there is no limit on size. http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/Exchange-2007-Store-Related-Changes-Improvements.html

Its also mentioned on the Microsoft Exchange page on wikipedia.

I'm not saying that Exchange is a perfect mailserver for (or worth the cost in) every situation, or denying that Microsoft does some really annoying things, but please try to get your facts straight before you complain about a piece of software.

I know this is Slashdot and it loves to bash Microsoft and all.. but did you know Exchange already does this?

"Exchange utilizes what Microsoft terms a single-instance message store. This single-instance message store works on a per database basis. What does this mean? If an e-mail message is sent to multiple mailboxes that are all in the same database, the message is stored once and each mailbox has a pointer to the message."
http://www.msexchange.org/articles/Understanding-Exchange-Information-Store.html

Thunderbird can access Hotmail and other webmail accounts with the Webmail extension. I'm using it to access my Hotmail and Yahoo accounts. Likewise, Exchange is usually configured to support POP and/or IMAP, meaning any decent mail client can pull emails from it. See http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/Connecting_POP_And_IMAP_Clients_To_MS_Exchange_Server.html for details. That won't give you access to all the other features, but it will let you get to your mailbox.

I read through the document you linked to, but couldn't see any detail on whether they aligned the sectors to the disk boundary. Specifically, I understand that Windows XP uses a 63 sector MBR, whereas a 64 sector offset will align I/O to disk boundaries. The disadvantage of Windows's standard configuration is that certain small I/Os will overlap two disks, forcing two hardware I/O operations for one software I/O request. Microsoft does a handy tool called Diskpar.exe (it's included with the Resource Kit). Here is a much more comprehensive description of the problem than I could write in a Slashdot comment.

"SPF problems
SPF breaks SMTP forwarding where an MTA forwards e-mail to someone else without changing the 'from' address. One solution for this problem is a technique called Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS). SRS is a mechanism for rewriting sender addresses when a mail is forwarded in that way when mail forwarding continues to work within an SPF implementation. To work around this self-imposed limitation of SPF, you need SRS."

Long story short - by implementing rigid compliance to SPF you can inadvertently throw out some of the Good Things (tm) that the e-mail system can do. Complexity upon complexity...were will it end?

Ok dude, what the FUCK. You CAN restore a mailbox without the original Active Directory user as well as without any third party software. You obviously have never used Exchange System Manager. Please, know your shit before posting misinformation!

You run the cleanup agent which shows you the tombstoned mailbox, you can then right click that and reconnect it to any Active Directory user.

Here's a link that will outline all of the steps to recover a mailbox, next time, know what you're talking about before posting.

Recover Exchange Mailbox

http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/SSL_Enabling_O WA_2003.html

You can easily create a certificate yourself with other OS and programs too, as others have noted.

Here and here

(btw filtering is off by default)

This is great news but does it support RPC over HTTPS? Its really tricky to get working in Exchange 2003 but once you've got it working its wonderful (Good Tutorial). After being a POP3 guy for 8 years I've jumped ship for MAPI. I know I'll get modded down for betraying IMAP4, which I considered as I'm not tied to Outlook, but my company is.

Vi ate my notepad

this issue was never really resolved for exchange 5.5.. but it is simply resolved in 2000 which is detailed here

If you are running Exchange 5.5 you shouldn't be wasting time locking it down... Your hours would be better spent opening ports on your firewall or something, because 5.5 is so old and underupdated that it more efficient to work on a new mail server with new software.