Prev: Groupwise recipients see TNEF.00X instead of normal attachment from Exchange 2007
Next: ESE 474 on priv.edb
From: BrantB on 5 Nov 2009 08:19

Hi Guys,

John - I must be missing something. In looking at the forum list here,
I don't see one that appears to be SBS-specific. (If you could provide
some details, or a link, that would be great - I'll be happy to post
there.)

Alexander - Thanks for the reference to your article; the IMF situation
is not something I was aware of or had considered ... but good to know.
Also, good suggestion regarding other POP connectors; some of the
searches I've done are indeed causing me a bit of concern about the
reliability/stability of the built-in SBS POP connector [smile].

Also, it is starting to look like I may just be able to solve the
problem by having the clients (Outlook 2007) do the collection instead.
That is how it has been done (for years) in the old envrionment (albeit
with older versions of Outlook and Exchange), and it has worked well.
I'll continue to look into the POP Connector idea, for sure ... but for
now, the Outlook route will probably allow us to just get on with the
migration, even if only as an interim step. When we have a bit less on
our plate, we can do the POP Connector research more justice ... and, of
course, when better high-speed connection choices ultimately become
available here, we'll certainly look at swinging over to a "normal"
full-time SMTP set-up instead [smile].

Cheers!

Brant


--
BrantB
http://forums.slipstick.com

From: Ed Crowley [MVP] on 5 Nov 2009 13:08
microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

"BrantB" <BrantB.416jfa(a)invalid> wrote in message
news:BrantB.416jfa(a)invalid...
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> John - I must be missing something. In looking at the forum list here,
> I don't see one that appears to be SBS-specific. (If you could provide
> some details, or a link, that would be great - I'll be happy to post
> there.)
>
> Alexander - Thanks for the reference to your article; the IMF situation
> is not something I was aware of or had considered ... but good to know.
> Also, good suggestion regarding other POP connectors; some of the
> searches I've done are indeed causing me a bit of concern about the
> reliability/stability of the built-in SBS POP connector [smile].
>
> Also, it is starting to look like I may just be able to solve the
> problem by having the clients (Outlook 2007) do the collection instead.
> That is how it has been done (for years) in the old envrionment (albeit
> with older versions of Outlook and Exchange), and it has worked well.
> I'll continue to look into the POP Connector idea, for sure ... but for
> now, the Outlook route will probably allow us to just get on with the
> migration, even if only as an interim step. When we have a bit less on
> our plate, we can do the POP Connector research more justice ... and, of
> course, when better high-speed connection choices ultimately become
> available here, we'll certainly look at swinging over to a "normal"
> full-time SMTP set-up instead [smile].
>
> Cheers!
>
> Brant
>
>
> --
> BrantB
> http://forums.slipstick.com
>

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Groupwise recipients see TNEF.00X instead of normal attachment from Exchange 2007
Next: ESE 474 on priv.edb