Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MS Fights Gmail With 2-GB Exchange Mailboxes

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the supersize-it dept.

Microsoft 353

prawnonthebarbie writes "Microsoft is battling the trend for frazzled office workers to give up on Outlook and auto-forward all their mail to Gmail: the company is promising 2-GB mailboxes in Exchange 2007 rather than the piffling 50-MB mailboxes most workplaces have now. Speaking at the launch of Vista, Office, and Exchange in Singapore, Microsoft Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis said Microsoft had built clustered replication into Exchange so corporate IT admins wouldn't be worrying about backing up big mailboxes to tape. However, its killer feature appears to be its plans to make those gigs of email available on Joe Officeworker's mobile phone."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Exchange (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327084)

I can't remember any of the companies I've worked for using Exchange server.

Attention Ladies! (0, Offtopic)

Asshat Canada (804093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327088)

No need to push...There's plenty of me to go around!

People actually do this? (5, Insightful)

Samir Gupta (623651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327096)

Most, if not all of my employers have had policies forbidding the autoforward of corporate email to external accounts, for the obvious confidentiality/security reasons.

Re:People actually do this? (3, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327302)

If you're a sales rep with decent leeway, you just give out a gmail address to your contacts instead of your corporate address. What IT don't know can't hurt you :)

Re:People actually do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327768)

If the company is worried about intellectual property they should implement a suitable secure VPN back to the network. Policies are put in place for a reason and an individual thinking they can act outside of the policy could risks losing their job. If the sales rep has sufficient need for remote access and the company doesn't provide a secure means to mail then the sales rep should present the options to management, one being the insecure external web based mail option. Management will have the option to provide an adequate solution, allow for use of the external web based email, or they can be a road block by ignoring the problem. In any case, the sales rep can justify their actions based on managements decision (i.e. if management ignores the problem, the sales rep can follow the policy and delay responses to email until they get back in the office per managements decision).

Jim

Re:People actually do this? (0, Flamebait)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327810)

Policies are put in place for a reason and an individual thinking they can act outside of the policy could risks losing their job.
And a company thinking they can be fascist about everything risks losing their employees.

A free market is a beautiful thing.

Re:People actually do this? (4, Insightful)

devilspgd (652955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328008)

Conversely, if I'm looking at spending a rather significant amount of money and find a sales droid using a gmail address rather then their corporate email address, I consider that a disqualifying condition for that company.

I consider it somewhere between a commentary on the company's ability to manage their own infrastructure, inability to manage information securely, or just plain stupidity on the part of their sales droid.

Either way, if there is a significant budget involved, I move on.

Re:People actually do this? (3, Insightful)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328250)

Yes, you probably would. However, you probably also wouldn't do business with a salesdroid that bounced your emails because his inbox was limited to 25M. In the end most purchasing agents and sales reps aren't technical people. They don't care where the email ends up as long as it gets answered. They're just normal people trying to get their job done with the tools given them.

Re:People actually do this? (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328076)

Yes, because having a policy against idiotic acts like placing corporate data in third party services that have absolutely no contingency plan for access in the event something unspeakable happens to you and no guarantees of availability or security of data is facist....

I think your post symbolises very well the cheapness that certain terms and words have been lowered to on Slashdot.

Re:People actually do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17328162)

And a company that doesn't implement any policies will likely be out of business anyways. We're not talking about breaking say a dress code policy we're talking about sales data here. Losing an account because someone underbids you due to knowing what your rates are is an example of email policy intentions. If you don't agree with the policy then work to change it. You'll find that most (not all) have a reasonable purpose that might not be apparent to you. So do you think the policy against viewing "obscene" material is fascist too? What about diversity, export control, computer usage (i.e. using a company resource to do a "side business" project), etc...?

Jim

Re:People actually do this? (5, Insightful)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328264)

And a company thinking they can be fascist about everything risks losing their employees.
Geez, do you even know what the word "fascist" means? Hint: check Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , Dictionary.com [reference.com] or even Google [google.com] . I'm pretty sure that a company wanting to protect its intellectual property and trade secrets hardly qualifies. As someone who has dealt with some corporate espionage cases, I can personally say that such policies are hardly paranoid or based on far-fetched situations. There are innumerable instances of employees taking product information, customer information, etc. to competitors when they switch jobs - or even outright working for a competitor before the switch. Keeping the e-mail in-house provides documentation of many such occurances. Yes, I know that it's easy to work around this. But the vast majority of the time, people are pretty stupid about such things. Sometimes it's worth prosecuting, but most of the time it just slides.

If employees want to have personal e-mail, they're perfectly free to do so - outside of the company network. Inside the company, the rule is that if it's created on our equipment and / or stored on our servers, we own it. There's plenty of legal precident for this (IANAL, do your own research / buy your own opinions).

In any case, if you're going to engage in name-calling, please do so intelligently. See George Orwell's rant on the subject here [orwell.ru] . It's getting to the point where the word "fascism" - a thoroughly vile and evil concept that has resulted in the deaths of tens (or possible hundreds) of millions of people over the last century has been watered down to the point where it's used to describe "something I don't like and lack the intelligence to properly rebuke, so I'll just engage in ridiculous hyperbole while demonstrating my massive ignorance."

Fuck, now everybody's going to call me a fascist :-)

Re:People actually do this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17328218)

an individual thinking they can act outside of the policy could risks losing their job

No.

"They" is ONLY PLURAL.

Individuals thinking they can act outside of the policy could risk losing their jobs.

An individual thinking she can act outside of the policy could risk losing her job.

Got it now?

Re:People actually do this? (0, Troll)

Erris (531066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327408)

Most, if not all of my employers have had policies forbidding the autoforward of corporate email to external accounts, for the obvious confidentiality/security reasons.

But they still force the use of Outlook? Does this decision come from the same people who banned cellphones with cameras but not cameras themselves? Only cluelessness is obvious about policies like that. Must be a Microsoft partner office.

Re:People actually do this? (3, Informative)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327884)

Absolutely. In law firms it's almost de rigeur to have a gig or more in your mailbox. Lawyers are required to keep everything they get for a case and that includes emails which may have attachments, multiple versions of the attachments, etc. Some firms can have SANs devoted entirely to their mail server, plus clustering, etc. While the rank-n-file get fixed-size mailboxes, attorneys are unlimited.

What's funny is that the attorney database is segregated so it gets backup priority; if you just work at the help desk or are an assistant or some such, you may or may not lose your email in a bad crash (that presumably took out both boxes), but attorneys have a pretty high confidence they won't lose anything (which, given the nature of the business, is a good idea, really).

Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (4, Informative)

RobGeek (536943) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327116)

We seem to have some users with 8GB and larger mailboxes today using Exchange 2003. The site is slashdotted. Any explanation as to why 2GB mailboxes would be something new and useful?

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (2, Interesting)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327170)

1) Completely useless to have 2GB Mailboxes... That's what PST files are for

2) My wife, who has worked at the company for a year and a half, has already racked up at LEAST 8GB in ARCHIVED e-mail.

Microsoft... It's too little, too late. (and Google Desktop keeps everything within a quick lookup)

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327270)

I hate Google Desktop.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (2, Informative)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327304)

PST files do not always work in areas where corporate compliance issues exist. Unfortunately, rogue PST files are the main reason why email archiving solutions require a discovery agent to be loaded on clients. If you are a publicly traded company and wind up in court, discovery can subpoena all relevant emails sent out in the past 7 years. Even if these emails are sitting off the exchange server and on a PST, the corporation is still responsible for presenting them.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (3, Insightful)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327522)

In general, this also precludes the clustering Microsoft is talking about that they claim will eliminate tape. In short, tape creates a daily trail. The user or admin could wipe out every single message on the Exchange database, and you'd still have historical data sitting safely at your off-site location.

Tapes are also important for the "oops!" factor. Sure, Exchanges has ways of dealing with this, such as deleted item retention, but those run out after 30 days by default(adjustable), long before your CEO realizes he needs that email he deleted in order to defend the company in court.

Clustered or synced data merely replicates the deletions or modifications. They also have a nasty tendency to replicate corruption (rare, but it does happen). Having real-time "backups" is great, but unless they're made to store data in an historical fashion, they can't replace tape.

TW

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (2, Funny)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327306)

2) My wife, who has worked at the company for a year and a half, has already racked up at LEAST 8GB in ARCHIVED e-mail.


It is a shame that people have to resort of abusing email to store/share files.

-matthew

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327426)

It isn't abuse if it gets the job done.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (4, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327704)

Let me guess - you used to use a flame thrower to dry the cat.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328194)

It is a shame that people have to resort of abusing email to store/share files.

well sourcesafe is next to useless at actually doing what it should be good at... holding the important files and emails for a project. It's crap and dangerously flaky when the database is larger than a few gig, not to mention the fact that your critical data gets locked into a proprietary format. I'd have us using CVS at my place of work if I had any say in the matter, but they're a stick in the mud microsoft only shop... if it doesn't have microsoft on the box, then it doesn't exist as far as they're concerned.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327450)

2) My wife, who has worked at the company for a year and a half, has already racked up at LEAST 8GB in ARCHIVED e-mail...Microsoft... It's too little, too late. (and Google Desktop keeps everything within a quick lookup)

Beyond the issue of using email for file storage -- she keeps 8 gigs on GMail? How do I get 8 gigs from them?

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (2, Interesting)

SparkEE (954461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327486)

Yeah, PST files are great! I love when I get an email over the weekend using Outlook Web Access, and the email I need to use to respond is sitting on my desktop at work, not accessible through the Web Browser. It was even better when my hard drive failed and I couldn't get to any of that mail until IT had the time to restore those PST files from backups. </sarcasm>

This is just another example of the flawed logic of Windows users. That the desktop machine is the right place to store useful data. It makes for horrible loss in productivity when using multiple computers, inside or outside the office.

<rant>
Where I work, I often have to work in a lab room, away from my desktop. Rather than set up every lab computer the way I like to work, I end up Remote Desktop-ing to my office computer. This worked okay until the day my drive failed. When I got the computer back I spent nearly a week re-installing applications and still haven't spent the time to get my environment back the way I like it. It's just such a shame to be so tightly tied to a particular piece of hardware in this day. I'm pretty sure Windows provides some type of roaming profile thing to fix part of this, but they really need to get more server-centric and figure out how to execute compiled applications that live on another machine. That way I wouldn't have to install Vim, IAR, Xilinx, and Modelsim on every new lab machine I sit at.
</rant>

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327690)

Typically, Windows users do what the software tells them to. No logic is involved. I know I've never used a PST file and always kept my mail on the server.

In reality, the world is different today than it was back when POPing your messages down to your local machine was the norm. It was a world where bandwidth and server-side storage space was much more precious. I know even back then, my university account had a fairly tiny quota. If I wanted to keep many emails past a few months, downloading them via POP was the only option. And if I was on any other terminal than a direct line in a computer lab, I was sure going to want to download my emails and read them offline.

The only reason Windows (or Mac, which has the same history with offline mail) comes into it is that back then private non-Windows/Mac machines were practically non-existant. One guy in my dorm had his own linux box, but that was certainly not the norm.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327938)

It was even better when my hard drive failed and I couldn't get to any of that mail until IT had the time to restore those PST files from backups.

Why are you storing your PST file on your desktop? You probably should relocate the PST file to a network share on a server that has a regular backup schedule, has RAID storage, and a plan in place to quickly restore should the server fail. Where I work, we rarely backup any of the workstations so only copies of any files ever exist on the client desktops. All data should exist on a network share or on original media (CD/DVD/tape/etc...). Any client system that crashes will be restored with a default image and any custom installations are installed on top of that. As for the problem between the settings for your desktop versus lab systems, the IT group should be able to script the login to the point that all the basic settings are initialized on new desktop logins upon login.

Jim

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (5, Informative)

Philosinfinity (726949) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327196)

The summary is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate. The article basically states that MS is trying to urge companies that keep smaller mailbox quotas to bump them up to 2GB at least. Supposedly, the feature set of Exchange 2007 is supposed to make doing this more attractive to corporate IT departments.

Our department doesn't use quotas or any method of limiting mailbox sizes. In our site we have mailboxes upwards of 17GB. The main problem with this is that as of Exchange 2003, MS will not provide assistance resolving mailbox issues for mailboxes > 2GB.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (5, Funny)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327232)

>The summary is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate.

This is slashdot.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328210)

>>The summary is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate.

>This is slashdot.

Yes, please replace the words "if not" with "and intentionally" when you comment on the dupe.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1, Troll)

ipxodi (156633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327384)

Does Exchange 07 do away with the 16Gb limit for the mail store? Unless you have the "Enterprise" version of Exchange 2003, the total of all your mailboxes can't exceed 16GB. I'm at a company which is small enough to not want or need the added expense of Enterprise, but is large enough to be able to easily store 16Gb of mail total. I have about 50 users, each of whom I try to limit to 250-500 MB of mail. You do the math. I'm always after people to clean up the mailboxes. And don't say use archiving. Archiving sucks. Most users don't know how to use it, and those who try it often lose their archives.
If MS would just get rid of the store limit, life would be happy.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (5, Informative)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327524)

With Exchange Standard 2003 SP2 it's a 75GB limit. You do have to reghack it, but it's there. SP1 is still 16GB total.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17328020)

It is this kind of ignorance that give Microsoft MCSEs a bad rep. The 75GB limit increase came with SP2. How long has Exchange SP2 been out?

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (2, Interesting)

Muffhead (22590) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327254)

Oddly I've got 4.3 GB, 4.1 GB, 3.9 GB, 3.9 GB, 3.2 GB, etc. News to me that Exchange can only now support 2 GB mailboxes. 2 GB archives however were rather painful.

But seriously a 25 - 50 MB mailbox is no use to anyone. I do fairly agressive cleanup & I'm at 220 MB. It would be nice if my users didn't keep so much, but if they need it, oh well.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327272)

Just because Exchange allows you to have an 8GB Mail box, doesn't mean that you can actually restore that of tape. Anything over 2GBs and either that mail box can't be restored or the entire Exchange Server can't be restored.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (2, Interesting)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327346)

It's useless. IT departments impose draconian mailbox limits for the following reasons:

- Software can't handle it (too cheap to upgrade)
- Lack of server resources (too cheap to upgrade)
- "Email is not a storage system" (dogma and hyperbole)

Microsoft's DeAmicis's talk will convince no one to change anything. The latest MS Exchange (among most other corporate messaging systems) can easily handle 2 GB mailboxes.

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

scotch (102596) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327478)

Add to your list: - SOX compliance / legal issues

Re:Exchange 8GB mailboxes today (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327824)

I'm guessing is psuedo-spam for Exchange 2007. All they could possibly be talking about is the DEFAULT EMAIL QUOTA of 50MB being bumped to 2GB. The article is obviously a fluff piece, I have numerous clients running Ex2003 all of which have users with mailboxes around 2GB. And the clustering bit supposedly relieving the tape backup nightmare is utter bullshit when the client is required by law to keep offsite backups of all email. Giving all of the users 2GB on a hundred user exch server = 200GB = an extra 10 hours of backup to tape time (realworld performance on the average BackupExec 10d server).

Cheers.

Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (4, Insightful)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327122)

We have an ~100mb limit so that *users do not use mailboxes to store vast quantities of data*. If you have 2gb of data, it should be on a shared server!

Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only - those could be kept forever as a useful archive. But 8 copies of different and non config controlled bid spec documents? That's only going to cost you money and lots and lots of pain.

That happens when you deal with outside companies. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327190)

But 8 copies of different and non config controlled bid spec documents?

Oh yeah! Particularly if you're dealing with an outside company. There's no way for your system to control their documents without your user manually copying the new document into your system.

And users will ALWAYS do what is easiest for them at that moment. No matter what it breaks.

Disk space is cheap.

What is needed is a way to setup annual archives and get the 8 year old data out of the current databases ... but still have them available for searching and such.

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (1)

Peter Mork (951443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327280)

Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only - those could be kept forever as a useful archive.

Our company moves all attachments older than about a month to an external archive. And we use Exchange Server and Outlook.

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (2, Insightful)

mistralol (987952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327340)

Store the information locally in an offline pst file. I dont know anyone who has 2GB of "active" emails they are processing.

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327606)

Store the information locally in an offline pst file. I dont know anyone who has 2GB of "active" emails they are processing.

I do. My old VP had 15,000+ e-mails stored on the server so he could access them from anywhere.

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (1)

korbin_dallas (783372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327344)

You know on the surface I agree with you. Big mailbox = people storing stuff forever.
And your method is completely useless where I work, where no ones msg is text, they are either
word docs, pdf docs or html links to the first 2.

Also in the corpse world, when I get "Meeting tomorrow at 9am" msg, 24bytes, which is
sent as a Word DOC (128kb), that word doc is chewing up space at orders of magnitudes
faster than plaintext.

And I get peoples weekly report word docs that are 1Mb. Wow, my MB can hold 40 msgs?

Sample Mail where I work: email -> worddoc -> html link -> pdf -> "Bob Dick has been promoted to VP of Brooms in Brazil. (more ra-ra words)".

I think something happened to all secretaries (er Admin Assistants) a few years ago.

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (1)

cinnamon colbert (732724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327572)

"Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only "

remind me to recommend you to our competitors
Did you see Last night's episode of Bones on Fox ?
How do yo spell clueless geek Ans: "realistic dragon"

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17328084)

Lotus Notes add-on "My Attachments" partially does this. Attachments expire after a week and are placed in a secure local cache of old attachments to still be availible but not on the servers.

Re:Did they ask everyone's IT department first? (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328126)

We have an ~100mb limit so that *users do not use mailboxes to store vast quantities of data*. If you have 2gb of data, it should be on a shared server!
Aw, c'mon, there are many perfectly valid reasons for users to have 2 Gb in their mail folders. For instance, your company probably has a policy that workers shouldn't pornsurf on company time. So the typical user gets the memo about the new policy, and what's his obvious, reasonable reaction? "Yeah," he says to himself, "I really shouldn't be spending the whole afternoon at work clicking around on porn sites. That's inefficient. Instead, I'll write a web-scraper script that downloads all my porn automatically, puts it in a tarball, and sends it to me every day as an e-mail attachment." He's just trying to be considerate by not putting it on a shared server, where you'd have to back it up for him.

Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only - those could be kept forever as a useful archive.
Aw, no way. Then his natural reaction would be to preserve all his old porn, by writing a cron job that goes through his mailbox once a week and sends a fresh copy of each porn archive back to himself.

Bullshit (5, Insightful)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327130)

Learn to read, submitter. The "piffling 50-MB limit" is a corporate policy. Exchange has supported multigigabyte mailboxes for a long time. MS is trying to get companies to limit mailbox quotas to prevent users from bypassing corporate policy and forward mail to Gmail.

I don't *think* so (4, Insightful)

OhHellWithIt (756826) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327136)

With that other post today about the U.S. government making the argument that they don't need a search warrant to read my mail on an ISP's server, I don't think I want my mail hanging around out there any longer than it takes to pull it down via POP. This is in addition to the worries one might have about proprietary information being accessible to potential competitors.

Re:I don't *think* so (1)

mark99 (459508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327198)

Better think again.

SOX requires your company to keep it around for something like 7 years, so deleting it out of your mailbox only denies *you* access to it.

Re:I don't *think* so (1)

Chang (2714) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327942)

Do you have a link to the SOX legislation or regulation that spells out this 7 year requirement?

This sounds completely made up to me.

Re:I don't *think* so (1)

jfmiller (119037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327274)

Right! But also a good reason to push for the adoption of encrypted e-mail. Who knows what your ISP's data retention practices are.

JFMILLER

2GB? (5, Funny)

nagora (177841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327142)

Have MS's programmers still not worked out that file size is an UNSIGNED Int?

Re:2GB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327386)

Perhaps they were using Java.

Re:2GB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327456)

microsoft programmers, using java? Clearly you dont understand just how much microsofts management hates java :) Heck, in c# - their 'java clone but better' attempt, msdn refuses to even mention the word java despite the clear similarities between the languages

Isn't it obvious? (was:2GB?) (2, Informative)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327760)

Have MS's programmers still not worked out that file size is an UNSIGNED Int?
Evidently they have, since 8GB is outside the range of an unsigned int (typically a 32bit quantity) It's more likely to be an unsigned long long (64bit quantity) or for the .NET 2002 people, unsigned __int64.

Good initiative, poor judgement (5, Insightful)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327160)

It's not the mailbox size that is causing people to use Gmail. It's the features. Gmail is simple and useful. It takes a lot more training and digging through menus to accomplish similar tasks in Gmail. The search feature is universal and reliable. If I need to find all emails related to a specific project it will take about 5 seconds in Gmail. In Outlook it would take at least 10 times that. The use of filters, labels, etc is far superior to similar functions in Outlook. They need to look beyond storage space. I'd still use Gmail even if it supplied far less storage space. In my opinion, Outlook is overkill. I doubt that many of its features are used by more than 75% of users.

Re:Good initiative, poor judgement (1)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327278)

After reading my post again that last line is confusing. Revision to last sentence: what I meant was that less than 25% of users use anything beyound Outlook's basic features. Oh, and 83% of statistics are made up.

Re:Good initiative, poor judgement (2, Funny)

blugu64 (633729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327946)

" Oh, and 83% of statistics are made up."

That's the '05 Number, it was 87% in '06, and projected to break 90% in '07.

Re:Good initiative, poor judgement (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327638)

Agreed. GMail could significantly lower my quota and I'd still love it. I currently am using 73 MB of my 2 GB of storage on GMail. And I was a fairly early adopter...

Re:Good initiative, poor judgement (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327842)

I was about to post almost exactly the same thing when I stumbled on your post. So, mods, pay attention: mod parent +1, Insightful.

I personally couldn't care less how much space I get on GMail; I love GMail for one very simple reason: conversations. There isn't a single mail program out there that has a feature that compares to it. Lumping all emails on a single topic together as in a single interactive page is the best way to retain context on an email thread. Instead of seventeen "re: Bob, have you seen this yet?" emails in my inbox, I have one conversation.

It's features like that that make me wish I could use GMail all the time, not storage space.

Re:Good initiative, poor judgement (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328164)

There isn't a single mail program out there that has a feature that compares to it.
/me opens Opera, F4, Inbox, Show as -> Threaded.

finally! (3, Funny)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327166)

Finally, there won't be any more error messages when Joe CEO sends that funny PowerPoint with the Aflack duck stealing money out of the lady's purse, the photo of the lady's car precariously "parked" between the marina and a yacht, and a movie clip copy of the FedEx caveman commercial. Isn't progress wonderful?

Re:finally! (1)

gregleimbeck (975759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327736)

Actually, it's Geico that has the caveman commercials.

Up yers MS (2, Insightful)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327208)

I forgot to check my hotmail account for a few months and you guys deleted all 10 MB of my emails. I lost touch with a bunch of people.

Re:Up yers MS (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327354)

How ?
Did you loose your contact list as well as the emails ?
Did they truncate your contacts list to people you've had contact with in the last year ?

Sorry, I'm just not sure how having your mailbox truncated to 10mb would cause you to loose contact with a bunch of people.

Re:Up yers MS (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327428)

Actually probably not; I'll have to check. I stopped logging into that thing once they deleted all the mail, which is what really pisses me off.

Do you need 2Gigs for company email? (2, Interesting)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327224)

I use gmail because I like it as a webmail client, nothing else (I don't care howmuch space I have, as I will never fill it). How much mail could you possibly NEED to store in a company email account? If you/your employies need more then what you are giving them, then you sohuld have given it to them (or come up with a better soloution) a long time ago, not wait for MS to implement remote backup in Exchange.

That and you should NOT have let them foward their email inthe firstplace (just disable the friken ability, it isn't that hard).

And how long (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327228)

is it going to take me to fix a corrupt exchange database WHEN one of these goes corrupt?

The length of time it takes already makes it a toss up between restoring last nights backup and having things offline while it repairs itself...

And before anyone asks, yes I do have it split up.

Gmail already has mail on the mobile (2, Interesting)

CormacJ (64984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327234)

http://www.google.com/mobile/gmail/ [google.com] has been around for a while now. It supports most types of mobile devices.

Why do I get a feeling that the Microsoft version will only support Windows CE devices?

Re:Gmail already has mail on the mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327548)

Precognition? :-)

Re:Gmail already has mail on the mobile (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327594)

Um, Exchange has supported this since Exchange 2003 SP1 was released almost 2 years ago as well...

Wow - how inovative (2, Informative)

woodyanderson (1042494) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327250)

Replicated and clustered mail stores for large mailboxes - something Lotus Notes has had for almost a decade. Maybe Ray Ozzie IS making a difference.

Re:Wow - how inovative (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327394)

Too bad no one is able to actually use Notes.

Re:Wow - how inovative (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327526)

Ray baby! How you likin that Seattle weather?

kind of missing the point (2, Interesting)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327318)

the point isn't the 2 gb mailboxes. it's the fact that you don't have to have a server staff to maintain your exchange server and backups, people use gmail because it's easy and accessible....oh yeah and it's free...

Use ELM (-1, Flamebait)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327374)

You fuckers wouldn't be having these problems if you was using elm and vt100 like email was supposed to be.

Mod me up, mod me down. Label me a troll or call me flamebait. Agree or dissagree with me, it don't matter. Nothing you can do will change the truth of my statement.

Re:Use ELM (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327578)

Actually, I find you all of the above. Insightful, troll, flamebait. I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time.

Email is, at its most basic form, text. However there are times when formatting an email is useful (1). Sticking a pretty 100k graphic as a background image is NOT USEFUL(2). But because 1 often leads to 2 because and because some people think that 2 is useful, we are beyond VT100 and ELM or PINE.

So, while I agree with your sentiments, the reality is you can never go back. It is both a waste of time and energy complaining. Time to move along, to something more useful. How about a nice game of Global Thermo Nuclear Jihad?

Re:Use ELM (2, Interesting)

nutznboltz2003 (832752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327678)

That's why I'd use Pine mail still, if it was an option where I work.

--nutz

You can tell this has nothing to do with reality (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327380)

Microsoft Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis said Microsoft had built clustered replication into Exchange so corporate IT admins wouldn't be worrying about backing up big mailboxes to tape

So you either need a nice fast link to another site (fast enough to handle all the replication) or you need to accept that in the event of a disaster, you've lost your email system permanently.

Assuming you have such a link, you have to hope that nobody ever gets disgruntled, or your nice shiny replica will merrily replicate all the deleting they do.

This is misleading to say the least (1)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327436)

Mailbox size in Exchange is pretty much unlimited(I wouldn't recommend it as your backup/restore times could be really long). PST max file size has been 2GB for the longest time. I wonder if the orginal poster meant Outlook 2007 instead of Exchange 2007? Outlook 2007, IIRC, has a pst file size limit of 4GB. Why anyone would need that amount of storage for email is beyond me.

The Real Problem (4, Interesting)

mistralol (987952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327444)

The real problem exchange actually has is that fact its so awkward to backup or restore from backup.
Mayby microsoft should solve some valid issues first in stead of ones thats the person who runs the exchange server call already solve.

You should have a look at the methods required to resotre an single email box from a tape backup. You need at least 1 set of the same hardware todo it the "microsoft procedure way" all 72 steps of it and it takes around 2 days to complete.

Really exchange is a joke. When things go wrong it spits out nothing useful and spits out errors all the time when its running correctly.

All in all end users whine if their email quota is to small but others will whine because its slow . You get whine if you do and whine if you dont.

Re:The Real Problem (2, Informative)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327996)

In exchange 2000 and previous verions, you are correct. It was a pain in the butt to restore an individual mailbox. But with proper planning and setup of policies you should NEVER have to restore an individual mailbox. Now I know what you are going to say, but what if a user deletes some message then emtpy's their deleted items folder. Well, use Recover Deleted items. You can set the retention in Exchange admin for as long as you want, most other exhcange admin I have talked to use somewhere between 30-45 days. In Exchange 2003, its made a bit easier with Recovery Storage Groups. You can restore a mailbox store to the RSG then use the exmerge util( was a PSS only util for a long time until Exchange 2003 came out then MS included it) to get the mailbox out, then merge it back in to the production mailbox, but again you really shouldn't have to do this. Exchange DB backups are only there for if the store corrupts of the volume the store is on dies.

Re:The Real Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17328098)

Actually, this hasn't been true since Exchange 2000. In 2003, you have Recovery Storage Groups that allows you to restore a store without the need of another server. Of course, this assumes that the deleted mailbox has expired passed the number of days Exchange is set to keep deleted items. Otherwise, you can just run the cleanup agent, and reconnect the mailbox.

Exchange Mailbox Restoration-yada, yada, yada (3, Interesting)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327458)

I know its going to come up, from those of you who cant figure out how to restore your Exchange mailboxes, and with the 2G thing it becomes even more important.

First, keep your transaction logs on a separate disk array. If you dont, FORGET reliably restoring your mailboxes.

Second, make sure you use the VSS (Windows Volume Shadow Copy Service) when backing up your mailboxes.

The number one issue I see when called in to fix these messes, is Exchange Admins keeping the Transaction logs and the database on the same hardware, as though you could lose one without losing the other.

Restoring Exchange is hard, but it CAN BE DONE, bitches!

Exchange Server storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327518)

50MB mailboxes is a suggested corporate policy, not a limitation of Exchange storage...
Exchange Server stores e-mail in a database file, using the ESE storage engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Storage_E ngine [wikipedia.org] ). The maximum size of each file is 32TB and Exchange 2007 supports up to 50 files per server, theoretically allowing 1.6 petabytes per server. The way that the data is stored in the database file (single-item storage) makes restoring a single mailbox very hard -- it would be equivalent to running a query against a database stored on tape. Outlook uses the PST/OST file on the client. That is a much less advanced storage system and has a 2GB limit (or something like that).
The *realistic* size of Exchange Server database files is limited by the ability to backup/restore the files in a reasonable amount of time. A 32TB file isn't terribly useful if it takes weeks to backup/restore. The new clustered replication features in Exchange 2007 are _supposed_ to reduce the chance that a database file will have to be restored so larger files can be supported with the same SLA. Previous versions of Exchange did support clustering, but the data was shared between the two sides of the cluster.

Lawyers, See "Kill all the" (2, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327528)

Many people are stuck with user-hostile Exchange accounts due to fear of litigation. Companies impose rules like deleting all mail older than 30 days and not allowing the users to backup their email.

or switch to Lotus Domino where 2GB is small (1)

dominux (731134) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327550)

mail file size used to be limited to 64GB on Domino, the limit has since been lifted. I haven't seen a monster like that in the wild, however 2GB is nothing special. Exchange sites often have restrictive quotas, Domino does have quotas available as a feature, but not so many people use them. Disk space is about the cheapest commodity a company can purchase (ok, so backup time and tape may be more of an issue) so why should companies get their employees to spend their expensive time trying to save a few gig of disk space? I think the architectural problems of Exchange mean that it does not really scale. As I understand it all the mail is in one big shared file rather than independent per user files which can be backed up/restored/compacted/fixed as individuals without screwing up other people's mail.

Competition (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327554)

I'm guessing there are very few or no patents covering this, explaining why competition is very fierce. Customers win big.

Replication != Backup (1)

good soldier svejk (571730) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327588)

Unless this server to server replication includes some kind of iterative snapshotting you will still need to do backups. The main reason to do backups is not to recover servers or applications but to roll back eroneous changes. In the case of mail, most restores are of accidentally deleted mail. On Exchange this typically (barring a third party solution) also means the whole mailbox. So larger mailboxes mean longer restores. If this "replication does do snapshotting, and better yet allow for brick level restores, then maybe you can remove Exchange from your regular backup system. Otherwise, business as usual.

Forwarding (1)

extern_void (1041264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327622)

I forward my hard drives from Windows to Linux very often too :)

More Reactive Fantabulousness (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327644)

After IE 7 introduced tabs, anti-aliased text and PNG transparency, it looks like MS is again bringing up the rear.

For a company who got to where it was through innovation (yes, MS got to the dominant market position through innovation. The anti-competitve stuff came later), this constant stream of "Hey, yeah Google/Mozilla/ Apache/etc... That IS a good idea!" does not bode well for MS.

More disk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327648)

Better ask for more disk and faster tape drives now. Or better yet upgrade to a SAN, a large SAN.

Backup/Restore feature, not GMail (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327708)

Having worked on Exchange for nearly a decade, I can tell you that no one was thinking "Gee, lets compete with GMail by making database maintainence easier". That said, who knows how marketing spins things once it gets in their hands.

The feature described is actually to solve the problems Admins have had with the time it takes to do full backups of large MDB's. As end users have demanded larger e-mailboxes, the size of the MDB's have grown. Since these are typically taken offline during off peak hours for full backups, this increase in size has forced either constraints on mailbox size or limited the number of mailboxes per MDB.

So much for evil nevarious plans to take down GMail (other than the kooky ideas marketing comes up with). :P

And coming up next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17327790)

...the story about Joe GS-Level Officeworker and how his classified email was on his stolen cellphone. Film at 11.

Wrong again, Thanks for the FUD (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327864)

the company is promising 2-GB mailboxes in Exchange 2007 rather than the piffling 50-MB mailboxes most workplaces have now.

It can already do this. MS is suggesting that companies increase the limits put on users to avoid risky (and potentially illegal) mail dumping to a GMail account.

Slashdot: Now with more FUD!

Aside from this there is also the option of personal folders using Outlook. Much more secure than GMail or any other 3rd party mail servers.

I don't do this, but: (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17327968)

I prefer using IMAP mailboxes/folders for all my mail; but I know a lot of people who do this. I think it's obvious MS doesn't "get it", though. It's got nothing to do with storage (even older versions of Exchange let you specify larger quotas, so it's just a matter of having enough bulk storage available). Many, if not most, people seem to prefer using Gmail's interface. And what's funny is some of these people prefer any web mail interface to using a separate mail program. We've got a lot of users that routinely use Webpine for access to their campus mail, and that beast is a crock of [insert perjorative here].

Wrong killer app (1)

PermanentMarker (916408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328002)

You have seen the wrong side, the real killer app in ex2007 is voice integration. And i mean voice.. In Exchange 2007 you can call with your mobile and it will speak out your email or you can say something like "i'm 10 to 20 minutes late for my next appointment". Then it understands this and automaticaly updates all other who where in this appointment. It's not like "press 1 for agenda, press 2 for mailbox, pres 3 for options... No its much much smarter then the average automatic telphone centre. You can even record a voice message and send it it others. And the voices are quite good te even when not english other languages ('i 've heard Dutch, amazed be such a clear voice). I would say Exchange 2007 is a (again) a killer app from MS. Like it was before the most powerfull mail system. Gmail ofcourse is fun, however wait till you mail your yahoo friend or visa verse. Google has a mailsystem (based on what???) wich often cannot mail to yahoo because the nailed their product i gues to much with html styles. Otherwise i cannot explain why mailing between yahoo and google so often goes wrong especialy with deep threads. Ofcourse the people who now how protocols behave (MS) had never had such problems. Yeah i dare to say that since it began including x400 in ex5.0 (wich soon went to 55) In those days it replaced expensive x400 switches could connect to x400 clouds And these days it will sip i say i'm amazed again.

Google mail sucks... (0)

PermanentMarker (916408) | more than 7 years ago | (#17328234)

Yeah it realy does as a mail system.
Why ?
Ever tried to mail dep nested mails between yahoo an gmail ?
Often such mail does not arrive, you dont even get a NDR (call that a mail system???).
Gmail is its own blackhole mail system.

Compared to MS, they are not even near to EX2000 owa.
And how about a mail system to wich you can talk trough your mobile..
Well that is the killer app in Exchange 2007, it can listen to you.
Not like pres 1 one for.. pres 2 for.. no REAL voice integreation.
"i'm 10 to 20 minutes late for my next appointment" and all others invited are automaticaly notified.. Call that integration, call that handy (when driving a car for example).
By voice you can instruct this electronic 'girl' to read out your mail.
And she even got pretty voice (well that depends on the language, the amrican girl sounded a bit more like bitch, but the dutch well.. hmm.. wonder if she could be dated)

I also think this is not real serious balance, comparing a top notch company mail system to a public free mail system. Not even in terms of troughput, user interface, or security, or worse even privacy (big google is watching that's publicly known).

It must be because of slashdot most readers admire linux, but even for those people if you like to you might use commandline only to configure tasks or install exchange, in fact the GUI gives and executes the command line code, which you might type by hand to (for every task). If you combine that with MS Core server...........
No i'm not against linux or other types of OS but had to many cases in which people could not explain their sendmail configuration which was halting proper mail flow.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?