outlook 2010 issue

[zmaster]

hi guys,
my server is running 2003 exchange
my outlook is 2010.

it seems to me as if microsoft is deliberately trying my patience.

What i did so far.
I copied my pst file onto the default folder.
Created my account. Set the above mentioned PST file as default.

Now no matter what i do, the mail refuses to download to the pst file.
It just sits in the mailbox.


Any suggestions?

 

[gsaldivar]

Exchange (cached mode) -> *.ost file
POP/SMTP -> *.pst file

 

[zmaster]

i'm running in exchange and cached more is on.
please elaborate

 

[Nothinman]

i'm running in exchange and cached more is on.
please elaborate

PST files are secondary storage, if you're using cached exchange mode then the cache goes in the OST file. You only need a PST file if you're archiving your mail in a place other than your Exchange server mailbox itself.

As much as I hate Office 2010 it sounds like you're the one trying your own patience here.

 

[zmaster]

hi,
i killed cached exchange mode, and i am still not getting the emails downloading to the pst file.

 

[Nothinman]

hi,
i killed cached exchange mode, and i am still not getting the emails downloading to the pst file.

And you won't, that's how Outlook has worked with Exchange servers for at least 3 revisions now.

 

[compman25]

Why do you need an exchange server if you aren't going to use outlook the way it is designed to with exchange?

 

[GeekDrew]

hi guys,
my server is running 2003 exchange
my outlook is 2010.

it seems to me as if microsoft is deliberately trying my patience.

What i did so far.
I copied my pst file onto the default folder.
Created my account. Set the above mentioned PST file as default.

Now no matter what i do, the mail refuses to download to the pst file.
It just sits in the mailbox.


Any suggestions?

Exactly how did you set the PST as your default? Why are you expecting Outlook to put Exchange mail in the PST?

 

[zmaster]

hi,
i may be mis-phrasing myself, but i want the default storage to be the pst file not the mailbox. (default mail delivery location)
it works fine in 2003, and 2007, but for some strange reason 2010 just sits in the mailbox

 

[Nothinman]

hi,
i may be mis-phrasing myself, but i want the default storage to be the pst file not the mailbox. (default mail delivery location)
it works fine in 2003, and 2007, but for some strange reason 2010 just sits in the mailbox

I can honestly say I've never even thought about doing that because it defeats the purpose of using Exchange...

 

[alkemyst]

ost files are good for bandwidth limited locations.

 

[GeekDrew]

hi,
i may be mis-phrasing myself, but i want the default storage to be the pst file not the mailbox. (default mail delivery location)
it works fine in 2003, and 2007, but for some strange reason 2010 just sits in the mailbox

How was it set up in 2003 and 2007? It was not set up as an Exchange account, because Exchange accounts do not deliver mail to a PST file, and never have.

 

[Snapster]

I'm guessing the old account were set up as normal pop3/smtp mail accounts rather than an exchange account which meant it was be delivered to your pst.

 

[zmaster]

umm, no, it was exchange 2003 with office 2007.
we dont use pop/smtp.
the reason we used pst's with exchange is due to space limitations.

 

[Nothinman]

umm, no, it was exchange 2003 with office 2007.
we dont use pop/smtp.
the reason we used pst's with exchange is due to space limitations.

Then you had auto-archiving or some mail filtering rules to move them for you because Outlook has never operated in the manner you seem to think.

 

[zmaster]

hi "experts"
i'm sad to say that anandtech has failed me for the first time in nearly a decade.


http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4561/outlookf.jpg


the picture includes the solution.

it was so frustrating trying to fix it for the last two weeks.

anyways, its all good.
cheerio

 

[gsaldivar]

I think the ability to do that depends on policy/permissions of the server you are connecting to. I would imagine this would be prohibited in most companies.

Regardless, I really don't understand the reasoning behind doing this. By changing delivery to a *.pst file you may as well just use a POP/SMTP account because you've just disabled many of the collaboration features of Exchange. You are in effect telling the server to deliver all your data to a locally stored file instead of the Exchange Mailbox... so, no more Outlook Web Access, no more shared folders, no more server anti-spam protection... etc. Needless to say, this is a huge security issue and as many people have already said - it completely defeats the purpose of using Exchange in the first place.

What's the point of this "fix" again?

 

[Nothinman]

hi "experts"
i'm sad to say that anandtech has failed me for the first time in nearly a decade.


http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4561/outlookf.jpg


the picture includes the solution.

it was so frustrating trying to fix it for the last two weeks.

anyways, its all good.
cheerio

As interesting as it is to know that's possible, I still have no idea why you'd want to do that because it defeats 99% of the reasons for using an Exchange server. You might as well just connect as IMAP and move on.

 

[GeekDrew]

As interesting as it is to know that's possible, I still have no idea why you'd want to do that because it defeats 99% of the reasons for using an Exchange server. You might as well just connect as IMAP and move on.

This would simulate POP more than IMAP, but regardless. I've tried to do this before, and have failed. I am 100% certain that I've read numerous documents indicating that it can't be done. So.... wtf. My bad.

 

[gsaldivar]

This would simulate POP more than IMAP, but regardless. I've tried to do this before, and have failed. I am 100% certain that I've read numerous documents indicating that it can't be done. So.... wtf. My bad.

Correct, I think even IMAP would be a significant improvement over what the OP is trying to accomplish, at least that way you would have some data redundancy with the Exchange server. I checked Outlook and I don't even see the option shown in that screenshot so I think it has to be some permission that is turned on at the server level.

IMHO - allowing users to redirect delivery to a .pst file is a recipe for disaster... if they don't have any backups and something happens to their hard drive all of their email data is *GONE*...

Good luck! :thumbsup:

 

[gsaldivar]

I found an old article that discusses this option:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/outlook-2000/choosing-an-outlook-delivery-location.aspx

 

[Nothinman]

Correct, I think even IMAP would be a significant improvement over what the OP is trying to accomplish, at least that way you would have some data redundancy with the Exchange server. I checked Outlook and I don't even see the option shown in that screenshot so I think it has to be some permission that is turned on at the server level.

IMHO - allowing users to redirect delivery to a .pst file is a recipe for disaster... if they don't have any backups and something happens to their hard drive all of their email data is *GONE*...

Good luck! :thumbsup:

I just checked my copy of 2010 here and I do have the button, however when I click it I get a big warning basically telling me that it's really stupid and that I shouldn't do that.

 

[compman25]

I just checked my copy of 2010 here and I do have the button, however when I click it I get a big warning basically telling me that it's really stupid and that I shouldn't do that.

If you elect to do that it should also have a "Thanks for spending lotsa $$$ with MS for an Exchange server, you could have gotten by with a linux solution for free."

 

[Nothinman]

If you elect to do that it should also have a "Thanks for spending lotsa $$$ with MS for an Exchange server, you could have gotten by with a linux solution for free."

Or maybe he just works for a shitty admin that has mailbox quotas set to like 100M each...

 

[zmaster]

Nothinman hit the nail on the head.