ATTN: Rich Matheisen [MVP] and/or Andy David {MVP}
in [Microsoft Exchange]
|
From: jim on 9 Jul 2008 15:07 Okay, so then i guess the larger question is, what's the permanent fix? Moving mailboxes takes a lot of down time, especially if it's just going to be a band-aid. "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews(a)rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message news:08u974h9ktvfr1q8kgne1g7b7oj2tlqf10(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:52:56 -0400, "jim" <jim(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >>I'm not sure what i'd be looking for in the headers. > > Usually headers that begin with "X-". > >>In any event, we've >>tried it with multiple external addresses, domains, and email systems, so >>i >>seriously doubt that the all of the headers can be described as odd-ball. > > "Odd-ball" just refers to out of the ordinary. > >>The only commonality is this one Exchange MB in our organization. It's >>not >>happening to any other MB's in that database by the way. > > That's because you reached the maximum number of named properties in > that database. It just hasn't happened in the other databases -- yet. > >>The solution sounds terrible. Move all MB's to a new store?? > > Assuming the original emails are no longer in the database that'll > work. If you look at a worst case situation, the target database will > already have close to the maximum number of named properties and your > moving messages to it will result in the same failure before you move > all the mailboxes to it. > > The "solution" is a band-aid, and there's no guarranty that it'll work > for you unless the target database is emty at the start and receives > no new messages during the move. > --- > Rich Matheisen > MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
From: Rich Matheisen [MVP] on 9 Jul 2008 16:37 On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:07:23 -0400, "jim" <jim(a)nospam.com> wrote: >Okay, so then i guess the larger question is, what's the permanent fix? At this time? There is none. You can (if you want to) write either an event sink (exchange 2003) or a Transport Rule (Exchange 2007) to remove the headers you don't want to remain in the message. >Moving mailboxes takes a lot of down time, especially if it's just going to >be a band-aid. I'm not agruing with you. I agree. But it's not my code -- it's Microsoft's. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
From: Andy David {MVP} on 10 Jul 2008 09:16 On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:37:36 -0400, "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews(a)rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote: >On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:07:23 -0400, "jim" <jim(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >>Okay, so then i guess the larger question is, what's the permanent fix? > >At this time? There is none. You can (if you want to) write either an >event sink (exchange 2003) or a Transport Rule (Exchange 2007) to >remove the headers you don't want to remain in the message. > >>Moving mailboxes takes a lot of down time, especially if it's just going to >>be a band-aid. > >I'm not agruing with you. I agree. But it's not my code -- it's >Microsoft's. >--- >Rich Matheisen >MCSE+I, Exchange MVP Transport Agent just added to CodePlex: http://www.codeplex.com/HeaderFilterAgent
From: Rich Matheisen [MVP] on 10 Jul 2008 21:44 On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:16:00 -0400, Andy David {MVP} <adavid(a)pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote: >On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:37:36 -0400, "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" ><richnews(a)rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote: > >>On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:07:23 -0400, "jim" <jim(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> >>>Okay, so then i guess the larger question is, what's the permanent fix? >> >>At this time? There is none. You can (if you want to) write either an >>event sink (exchange 2003) or a Transport Rule (Exchange 2007) to >>remove the headers you don't want to remain in the message. >> >>>Moving mailboxes takes a lot of down time, especially if it's just going to >>>be a band-aid. >> >>I'm not agruing with you. I agree. But it's not my code -- it's >>Microsoft's. >>--- >>Rich Matheisen >>MCSE+I, Exchange MVP > > > >Transport Agent just added to CodePlex: > >http://www.codeplex.com/HeaderFilterAgent Version 1.0.0.2 seems to work much better. :-) --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
From: Andy David {MVP} on 10 Jul 2008 21:47
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:44:08 -0400, "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews(a)rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote: >On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:16:00 -0400, Andy David {MVP} ><adavid(a)pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:37:36 -0400, "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" >><richnews(a)rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:07:23 -0400, "jim" <jim(a)nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Okay, so then i guess the larger question is, what's the permanent fix? >>> >>>At this time? There is none. You can (if you want to) write either an >>>event sink (exchange 2003) or a Transport Rule (Exchange 2007) to >>>remove the headers you don't want to remain in the message. >>> >>>>Moving mailboxes takes a lot of down time, especially if it's just going to >>>>be a band-aid. >>> >>>I'm not agruing with you. I agree. But it's not my code -- it's >>>Microsoft's. >>>--- >>>Rich Matheisen >>>MCSE+I, Exchange MVP >> >> >> >>Transport Agent just added to CodePlex: >> >>http://www.codeplex.com/HeaderFilterAgent > >Version 1.0.0.2 seems to work much better. :-) Indeed. So far so good :) >--- >Rich Matheisen >MCSE+I, Exchange MVP |