Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft has one too that basically crippled their email for a few days - Bedlam DL3 they call it.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx

It didn't help that Exchange had a bug in it that made things even worse.

Me Too!

Reply All to 13,000 people

There may not be much mobile love between Google and Apple, but I'm quite sure that neither one wants Microsoft to win anything in such a market.

After all, if Microsoft wins this one, what's to stop them from contriving other overly-broad patents against Apple's iPhone at the first convenient moment?

I think Apple already licenses many of these technologies as part of their Exchange ActiveSync licensing. This is the reason why the iPhone had no Exchange support at release despite the demand, they first had to license it and likely decided to see if the thing succeeded before going after the license and functionality.

Companies like Apple tend to do all they can to make sure they are not infringing on technologies owned by other large companies. The problem with Android is that, technically, it's the device owner that should be pursuing the licensing. Many companies that implement Android may had not done the homework needed to realize they should had gone into licensing agreements here or there.

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.

I think the most likely explanation is that PST files are deprecated in the next version of Exchange... they are pushing for people to move to server-integrated archiving instead. That will make PSTs somewhat redundant so why not open up the spec if it gets you warm fuzzies from the industry.
A comment from an Exchange developer on the EHLO blog:

"To put it simply you need to move away from PSTs. Larger mailboxes are the answer here. In addition you can leverage, single item recovery, and our messaging records management 2.0 with a personal archive mailbox to retain needed data and manage your quotas."

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/09/25/452632.aspx

Microsoft has described this in excruciating detail before, because at one point even they managed to crash their Exchange server - through mail list reply all spam.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx

Sounds like the State Department might not have upgraded to Exchange 2003.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx

Again...

-Ghostis

did anyone else read the link as 'm sex change team'?

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx

Again...

-Ghostis

who is this mysterious 'm', and why is he gathering a team for his sex change?

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/04/08/109626.aspx

Again...

-Ghostis

From http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/09/13/428901.aspx

Why doesn't Premium work on Firefox?

Before I wrap up, I'd like to address the question we often receive about why OWA Premium doesn't work in non IE browsers. The following is heavily plagiarized from others who have answered this question as well (thanks Kristian!), and if after reading this you are still unclear as to why Premium doesn't work on Firefox, please feel free to post your questions here and I'll do my best to answer them.

Shockingly, the decision to make OWA Premium only work on IE6+ has nothing to do with forcing people to use other Microsoft products (sorry to have to dispel the conspiracy, and just when Oliver Stone and Kevin Costner were starting pre-production on "OWA: The Movie "). The decision was made, simply enough, due to costs, time, and customer need.

The browser support we have for OWA Premium and OWA Light is due to usage share among our customers, and the development and test investment it takes to support additional browsers/versions. This doesn't mean the browser statistics for "browsers hitting OWA", which would be skewed based on our previous browser support. We look at the browser statistics for "browsers used on the Internet" and "browsers used within our customer organizations", as well as listening to what customers are asking for, since statistics, surveys, site logs, and research firms never tell the full story. The browser matrix of OWA is about where we allocate our investments, and the need of additional browser support as compared to the need for all the other OWA features our customers want. We have limited resources, limited time, and a very large set of potential features.

I understand it would be a PITA for them to add in support for 'premium' features in every browser, but FireFox has shown to be pretty popular in general. It's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy to say "we don't add in these features for other browsers because nobody is using those browsers for OWA". If they added in support for those features in firefox they'd probably find the percentage of users using firefox for OWA increases a lot. I know I used to fire up IE just to use OWA.

works fine but not everything works.

What's been implemented is standards compliant. No, not 100% of Exchange web functionality available in IE is available to non IE browsers, but the 95% common functionality there is between the 2 implementations will work on any major browser - see http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/09/13/428901.aspx for a brief rundown of what won't work on non-IE browsers.

Finally, if you're looking for a web only email solution, don't use Exchange; that's not what it's designed for.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/07/10/446015.aspx

Looks like Exchange 2007 supports IMAP IDLE.

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

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

Buy a faster computer.

You're most likely using Cached Exchange Modes on 2003/2007. Outlook 2000 only knows Online Mode, where all the stuff happens on the (fast) server. Cached Exchange Mode moves most of the IO heavy stuff to the client. Especially with a large mailbox and a shitty old computer, speed will then be abysmal.

See http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/12/17/447750.aspx

According to MS, in order to license the current version of exchange it will cost you $4000 per server + $97 per user + some unnamed fee if you want to interconnect with other companies servers

a shitty Web interface that has not kept up with the regular client

People with smartphones also end up costing you extra for connectors that allow them to access some of the functionality of your Exchange server

Kind of sounds like Bedlam DL3 all over again.

Try thousands.

Microsoft had an email storm that took down companywide email

I believe you are referring to "Bedlam DL3".

Actually, it is a Microsoft invention. No kidding. The Outlook Web Access (OWA) team are the ones that lobbied the Internet Explorer team to include the (original) XMLHTTP object; which was originally MADE by the OWA team.

It's fair to say that OWA for Exchange 2000 was the _first_ AJAX application. They started development of it all in 1998.