Slashdot Mirror


Traveling Laptops, Exchange 2000, and Multiple Profiles?

PDiddy asks: "Working for a corporation which uses Exchange 2000, I have run into countless traveling users with laptops that have complaints about how their mail is received from the outside vs. inside. Most of these users have a 56k or less dialup when on the road, so having them connect with an Exchange profile is incredibly slow, even with 'Offline Folders' enabled. The second option is to have two profiles. One for Exchange (Inside), and have it default to delivering to a PST. The second profile (Outside) be setup for POP and set it to the same PST. On the surface, this solution looks great to the user, but the ability to nightly backup the mail on the exchange server is removed. The third option would be to have a combination of the two approaches, the difference being the exchange profile (Inside), would leave the mail on the server, but then you have users complaining about having to sort through their new mail twice. What I need is a good, all around solution. Perhaps their are some third-party plugins for outlook I am unaware of to create a new solution? Also, are their any recommended methods for accessing an Exchange global address book over a very slow connection, or, perhaps syncing updates to laptop while connected so it can be used on the road? Currently, if you export that address book, it will set the email addresses to X.400, which will not work from a POP profile."

30 of 55 comments (clear)

  1. Use Exchange's web interface by nelsonal · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you arn't connecting with your main computer, the web based interface is one of the better ones. I have no problems accessing over my fairly slow DSL connection, and the one time I saw it used with dialup it didn't work any worse than any other email client over dialup. Wow, its been almost 6 years since I have used dialup for more than a week.

    --
    Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  2. Since you're in bed with MS already... by seanmeister · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... try Outlook Web Access, or maybe just have them use Outlook in a Terminal Services session. Either way is a hell of a lot faster than accessing the mailbox directly over dialup.

    1. Re:Since you're in bed with MS already... by Maximilian · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's also a Plus Pack available for Outlook Web Access that adds a bunch of features that make it work just as well as the desktop version (e.g. Rolodex/Address Book, Spell Checking, new email notification, Secure Logoff). This software is provided by a company called Messageware.

      <Disclaimer>I built the website for messageware.net but don't make any money off the software :) </Disclaimer>

  3. Remote access can be a pain by vasqzr · · Score: 3, Insightful


    Remote access can be a pain, especially if you don't have a huge amount of $$$ to throw at the problem.

    Now you know.

    Not everyone can always have a broadband connection.

    Web interface email is your best bet.

  4. Screw the proprietary interface by Dunkirk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just use IMAP and be done with it. Yes, you must have the space on the server for everyone to store their mail, but you can limit the size of the mailbox on the Exchange server. That will eliminate the calls to the help desk when a user blows away his 2 GIGABYTE .pst file and needs it restored. (True story.) If you're still afraid of the storage requirements, then just consider that it's all disk space in your company, somewhere. Whether it's on the email server, or spread over the file and print servers, it's still the same company spending the same money on the same amount of disk storage.

    --
    Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
    1. Re:Screw the proprietary interface by reaper20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's great and all until Joe Traveler asks why he can't get his calendar that way. And they're going to demand that they have access to those 2GB worth of "important archives" - you know, the same lame jokes and pictures that are clogging the system to begin with. I've always wondered what is up with people insisting on saving every email, along with it's attachment. People don't feel compelled to record their voice mails to cassette tape, why is email different?

      Outlook Web Access would handle the calendaring function. That, plus your IMAP suggestion would give them the most flexibility, but that would add a training overhead. They could use IMAP when they're on the road, and, when they need to use the calendar they can fire up OWA. Of course, you can get masochistic and copy their PST over for them to their laptop before every trip, but that introduces all sorts of problems.

      For the address book, I know Mozilla Mail has an option to download LDAP directories for offline use, I'm sure Outlook has similar functionality.

    2. Re:Screw the proprietary interface by _Spirit · · Score: 2

      I do save my voicemail, as I get mine e-mailed from the phone company :-P

      As to why I save it all, it's because I have to. I have to deal with many different people in many organisations that don't always see eye to eye or have the same goals and perspectives. What's more I usually have to keep em all happy. This requires a good archive and saving my e-mail is part of that. It's good to have some e-mail to wave around if fingerpointing starts. Believe me, stuff like this happens all the time, especially in larger organisations. It's also a good way to be able to transfer work to a replacement (As a consultant I get switched around projects a lot) It saves a lot of annoying phone calls if your replacement can just search your mail archive to see when you told what to who.

      I did a lot of serverside work on Exchange so I know a large edb is a pain. Teach your users that say they need it how to make .pst's on cd or whatever and keep maximem mailboxsizes (up to 50MB tops) small. Works in most places.

      --

      beauty is only a light switch away

  5. Mod parent up. by Hobart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Over a remote modem connection, I've found using Terminal Services to run Outlook to be faster than trying any of the other arrangements.

    Doesn't help them get mail when offline, though.

    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  6. Sounds like your environment has issues by haplo21112 · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the Exchange server and Outlook are both setup correctly you should not see this kind of delay and speed issue. The Outlook client should besetup of syncronize the offline folder with the server when they are online. In this way the only headers that need to be sent to the client on each connect are any new ones the client already has all the old ones. Also reasonable limits on the size of the exchange mailbox help alot. We have found here that approx 65MB mailboxes are ideal...the upper limit is around 150MB before things really get ugly. Don't let users use mail as a failing cabinet, or at least force them to personal folders (which we don't recommend to the users here, loose the hardrive loose the mail) as that function. Tell them to keep only useful mail, and be responsible about deleting and keeping the mailbox clean, move attachments to safe storage locations.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:Sounds like your environment has issues by Telastyn · · Score: 2

      Which of course users won't do. If they were reasonable un-pushy users they wouldn't be stuck using exchange in the first place.

      Furthermore there will be alot of issues anyways over a 56k line because of the contact list merging, which always seems to be very large, and thus always seems to be very slow. The calendars try to update the same way, and they too are usually fairly full for road users (salesguys).

      Unfortunately there's no really good alternative (currently; there's a few open and non-open options, but they are imo, not better) to Exchange if you *NEED* shared calendaring integrated with email. Wether you actually *NEED* that is another question, and usually a moot one.

  7. how many by jjshoe · · Score: 2, Funny
    how many exchange servers does it take to send an email?


    60. 59 to verify you have the proper liscence and one to actualy do the work :)


    actualy i must say as much of a linux fan that i am its nice to see something get posted for microsoft. i dont think /. should be entirely based around linux. as much as i dont like it microsoft will be around for a while

    --
    -- botsex is {grep;touch;strip;unzip;head;mount} /dev/girl -t {wet;fsck;fsck;yes;yes;yes;umount} {/de
    1. Re:how many by shyster · · Score: 2
      Eh? Exchange servers don't verify licenses...that's a job left up to the Windows Licensing Service. Disable it and you're done. Unless you have SBS...but, by design, that's only 1 server.

      Now, if your joke would have been "How many servers does it take to send an Exchange email?", and the punchline "60. 59 to clean the viruses, and 1 sendmail server to send the damn thing." That would have been funny.

  8. More clarity would help. by FreeLinux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The description of your environment and your problem are not exactly clear, as you list several different configurations. However, I think that there is definitely a problem.

    The fact is that Microsoft has already addressed this very issue in the best possible way. Configuring the laptops with mobile Outlook profiles causes the Outlook to leave all mail in the users mailbox on the Exchange server but, at the same time it caches the the mail in a local file along with the global address book. this allows the user full mail functionality while disconnected from the Exchange server but then synchronizes any changes when the laptop is later connected. While the synchronization process is not entirely transparent, especially on slow connections, it is not unreasonably intrusive, either. The only time that I have found it to be an issue is when people have large attachments in the mail messages.

    Contrary to the other recommendations, POP3 and IMAP alternatives will NOT be any faster than the native MAPI connection. Indeed, these alternative protocols will instead reduce functionality, as you have partially stated in your post.

    From the description of your problem it is difficult to identify the specific problem. But, it sounds as though there is an issue which is causing excessive delays in connecting to Exchange via MAPI. This type of problem is less frequent with Exchange 2000 than it was with 5.5 but, it can still occur. Perhaps the most common problem for delays in connecting to Exchange remotely is a name resolution problem. You can test if this is the issue by starting a remote connection from one of these laptops (don't start Outlook) and see if you can ping the Exchange server by name. If ping does not resolve the name and start pinging immediately then there is a name resolution problem. If that is not the issue there is also a potential problem with name resolution in Outlook itself. I recommend having a look at this Knowledgebase article.

    More information about your problem would certainly be helpful in finding the answer but, the only way to use Exchange faster than the above configuration is to use Outlook Web Access through a browser.

  9. One more thought. by FreeLinux · · Score: 2

    After re-reading your post, I got to thinking that you don't specify what client the workstations are running. It Occurred to me that you may be running Windows 2000/NT on these laptops and that you may have implemented Roaming Profiles (for Windows).

    This type of configuration can be an issue as users frequently store full files on their desktop which is part of the profile, rather than just short cuts to the files. This causes the profiles to grow very large, I've seen 60 Meg profiles, before people started complaining about performance when logging in.

    If this is the problem that you are having, you should configure your environment to use the locally cached profile when slow links are detected. This will prevent trying to pull a 60 Meg desktop profile across a 56K link. This configuration is done at a domain level using Group Policy Objects.

    But, like I said before, you don't really give enough information in your post.

  10. VPN by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your exchange box is behind a firewall, right?

    Having them VPN in solves a lot of DNS, routing and other such issues, as well as security, and blah blah blah. That's how I did it, at least, last time I had to worry about offline users talking to Exchange. Worked pretty good, too.

    Oh, and Outlook Web Access. True, doesn't help with the offline stuff, but how many users REALLY need that? Otherwise, tell them to sync at night in the hotel room when it doesn't matter, or to find a broadband connection.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  11. What??? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 2

    I'm running Outlook 2000 w/ Exchange 2000 on the backend. Connecting from home over a VPN takes 3-4 minutes to initialize the connection and start seeing new mail. Connecting with Mozilla via IMAP takes less than three seconds to read new mail. I'm not even exaggerating or joking.

    1. Re:What??? by FreeLinux · · Score: 2

      My trip last week required dial-up from a hotel room. Max connection speed was 19200, man I hate that!

      In any case, Outlook 2000 took only 2-3 seconds to start and new mail (the first few of 50+) was present within 5 seconds of Outlook startup. By the way, I hate to admit it but the mailbox contains 3000+ messages.

      It sounds to me that you have Mozilla properly configured but, you do have an issue with your Outlook configuration.

      Excuse me, I have to go clean out my mailbox. ;)

    2. Re:What??? by joshuac · · Score: 3, Informative

      ---snip
      I'm running Outlook 2000 w/ Exchange 2000 on the backend. Connecting from home over a VPN takes 3-4 minutes to initialize the connection and start seeing new mail. Connecting with Mozilla via IMAP takes less than three seconds to read new mail. I'm not even exaggerating or joking.

      ---snip

      Much more is done when you initially connect with the exchange protocol (do not call it MAPI, I've already seen a couple of people here handing out exchange advice who don't know the difference between a protocol and an API) than happens with IMAP. Public free/busy, flagged messages, alert queue, more being checked before the message list is even looked at. If all _you_ want is the messages, then IMAP is great.

      All the answers I've read so far seem to be shots in the dark. My shot in the dark; use the "remote mail" functionality in the client (assuming you are using outlook 98 or higher, if your running outlook 97 it is time to take advantage of the "free" upgrade to outlook 2000 included with exchange server).

      Finding out there are (still employed) admins out there forcing their users to connect to their exchange mailbox at 56Kbps using a protocol designed to run over 10Mbps connections, that is hilarious. Use the remote mail tools, that is what they are there for. RTFM if you have never used them before.

      You will find the remote mail tools work at about the same speed as an IMAP connection (only extended support for message header info unique to exchange which can be more helpful than what IMAP can provide when deciding whether or not you want to download that 24MB message). Also, from the client side, you will still see calendar, task folders, etc. in the same mailbox store, which is nice.

    3. Re:What??? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 2

      I don't think Outlook is configured wrong, and I've only got 1400 messages (nice round number). The overhead of the protocol is stunning. When you're scrolling the goddamned list of messages traffic passes on the wire since there's no cached copies of the headers stored. Every time you click a message, Exchange sends the full thing - again with no caching. My home connection is cable (and very fast), and even on that I've completely given up using Outlook. Shared calendars just isn't worth the minutes of wait time.

    4. Re:What??? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 2
      Remote mail is way too flaky, constantly bringing up a VPN connection and dropping it, adding the overhead of that protocol. I'll stick with IMAP and Mozilla - hell, even configuring Outlook to just use IMAP is a better solution all around IMO.

      If I actually ever give a damn about the calendar, tasks or notes I'll just use the web-based Outlook client - which amazingly enough doesn't require Internet Explorer (it'll even run under NS4 for Linux).

    5. Re:What??? by FreeLinux · · Score: 2

      But, it is configured "wrong", you said so yourself. since there's no cached copies of the headers stored If it was configured correctly the entire message would be cached locally.

      When you first install Outlook it asks "Do you travel with this computer". If you choose YES it will configure Outlook to work in offline mode and cache the mailbox locally. If you choose NO then you get your present configuration which is unbarable over a slow link.

      Also, note that if you have Terminal Services installed on your system, Outlook will not allow installation in Off-ine mode. See Q246052 about this issue.

    6. Re:What??? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 2
      I've tried the offline mode, and it only accelerates reading mail when I'm switched to Offline. As soon as Outlook realizes it's online, that same delay occurs. And what's worse is that it synchronizes the entire Inbox (plus other selected folders) on exit by comparing the messages on my hard drive to the ones in exchange - one by one. Call me crazy or naive, but there isn't much chance that a received message is going to change. With over a thousand messages, the delay in sync-on-exit is waaaaaay too long.

      Trust me, I've personally installed and configured Exchange and Outlook many times of the last couple of years. Any time I've been given a choice, I've chosen IMAP on a Linux/Solaris/BSD machine. The Exchange protocol is very, very bloated. There is no reason to not use the cached offline copies of data just because it detects a connection, that's fucking nuts. If my copy of Mozilla had to redownload a message every time I changed my selection in the folder I'd also be extremely pissed at that. Although with Moz I can file a bug report - with Outlook, I can upgrade to Outlook XP and still have all the same bugs - but with new, non-standard toolbars and menubars.

    7. Re:What??? by joshuac · · Score: 2

      ---snip
      Remote mail is way too flaky, constantly bringing up a VPN connection and dropping it, adding the overhead of that protocol. I'll stick with IMAP and Mozilla - hell, even configuring Outlook to just use IMAP is a better solution all around IMO.

      ---snip

      You need the VPN connection anyway if you are going to connect using the native protocol. If it is constantly disconnecting you, then something is wrong with your setup.

      ---snip
      If I actually ever give a damn about the calendar, tasks or notes I'll just use the web-based Outlook client - which amazingly enough doesn't require Internet Explorer (it'll even run under NS4 for Linux).

      ---snip

      As I said, if all you want is mail, IMAP is great.

    8. Re:What??? by Lukey+Boy · · Score: 2
      Read my post again - I've setup both Outlook and Exchange, many times. The protocol for Exchange is absolutely brutal. I really don't need a retarded monkey (otherwise known as an MCSE) to walk me through it.

      On the other hand, I'd love to see an MCSE trying to configure Sendmail.

  12. workgroups by kootch · · Score: 2

    is the reason why users have two different profiles because you have an established WORKGROUP that the user must be on to connect to the Exchange server via the Exchange method?

    If so, why not create two different profiles, but then alias the mail to one shared PST file r/w by both profiles?

  13. Outlook Needs to be Setup to 'Work Offline' by Mad+Browser · · Score: 5, Informative

    In addition to setting up offline folders, you need to force Outlook to 'Work Offline' or present the user with a choice between 'Connect' and 'Work Offline' when Outlook starts.

    If Outlook sees any kind of network connection, it will default to 'Connect' if not told otherwise, no matter if the link is 56k or 100Mbps...

    So, combine that with properly sync'd offline folders (sync when logging off when connected), you'll have none of this trouble.

    --
    RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
    1. Re:Outlook Needs to be Setup to 'Work Offline' by crath · · Score: 2

      Mod the parent up, as they say.

      This is the real answer to the poster's dilemma. A properly configured outlook client will only be marignally slowing than POP mail.

      We use Exchange and Outlook where I work too. When I travel I configure to work fully in offline mode and synchronize my inbox/outbox/address book every 10 minutes. Even with 100,000 or so entries in our corporate address book this doesn't present a problem as Outlook is smart enough to only synch changes... assuming, of course, that the user is smart enough to turn on the feature.

  14. Use Citrix Metaframe by un4given · · Score: 2


    Metaframe allows you to access bandwidth-intensive applications like Outlook over low bandwidth links such as 56k modems. The application runs on the server, and Citrix only sends compressed screen deltas and keystokes across the WAN.

    Client software runs on any operating system, including OS X and Linux. I use this configuration daily to access Outlook and MS Office from my home Linux and Solaris machines, and it works great.

  15. Two words... by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    I
    MAP

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  16. Thankyou for using the Slashdot Microsoft helpdesk by kireK · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for using the Microsoft helpdesk at Slashdot. Unfortunately your request should be redirect to the main Microsoft website . You purchased the Exchange server and client from them, so they will be providing you the top-notch support you expect from Slashdot. If you feel that they cannot help you, please ask for a refund for your product.