Exchange WTF



  • A coworker of mine<FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> got the following email today:</FONT>

    <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">

    </FONT>

    From: Microsoft Exchange
    Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:00 AM
    To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Subject: Your mailbox is almost full.
    Importance: High<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
    <o:p><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </FONT></o:p>

    <FONT size=3>Your mailbox is almost full.</FONT>

    987MB

     

    2441MB

    <FONT face="Times New Roman">Current size</FONT>

    <FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> 

    <FONT face="Times New Roman">Maximum size</FONT>

    Please reduce your mailbox size. Delete any items you don't need from your mailbox and empty your Deleted Items folder.<o:p></o:p>

    Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007<FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"> </FONT>

    <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"></FONT> 

    <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">

    </FONT>

    <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"></FONT> 

    <FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman">His comment: I’m confused. At this rate I have 2 more years before I fill it up. <o:p></o:p></FONT><FONT size=3 face="Times New Roman"></FONT>

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rad131304 said:

    I’m confused. At this rate I have 2 more years before I fill it up.
    Less, if he keeps getting those emails.



  • @rad131304 said:

    Your mailbox is almost full.
    With most such systems, the "quota" and "warning threshold" can be set by the email administrator. With ours (previous jobs, blah blah), we usually set the threshold closer to about 90 or 95% of the quota. I guess your email admins are a little bit more conservative (this is what we in the business call "an understatement"). Warn the users early, nip the problem in the bud!



  • Years ago, before we implemented email quotas properly at work, we had fuzzy quotas.

    Fuzzy quotas reported to the user that they worked like normal quotas - at least, so long as nobody went over quota, and the administrators didn't over-allocate the system.  However, when one bright bulb decided that a file too large to FTP may work through email, all of the people sharing his email server received emails similar to the one above.

    Basically, he sent out an 800M email message, which was accepted by his MTA.  His MTA then sent it on to the backbone MTA for the company.  That MTA took 12 minutes to acknowledge the final dot, so his MTA timed it out after 10 minutes, and queued it for subsequent mail duplication runs.  The backbone email server then connected to the destination MTA, which said, "That email's too big, I won't accept it."  So the backbone email server sent him a bounce message, which included his 800M email message.  This repeated for every delivery attempt until his MTA's admins found it and killed it.

    So what do fuzzy quotas do when a user is sent a bounce message four times the user's quota?  It accepts it, of course.  After this has happened enough that there's less free space than the sum of available quota space, it treats the user's quota as the lesser of the actual quota set and

      <space user is already using> + ( <user's quota> * <available free space> / <sum of all users' quotas> )

    However, it never *reports* this value to the user; it only uses it for purposes of generating 'nearly over quota' and 'over quota' messages.

    As a result, when one user is using up 90% of the available space, and the rest of users are using 9.5% of the available space, just about everyone is 'nearly over quota', despite the fact that the rest of the users aren't anywhere close to their official quota, and the threshold is set for 95%.

    These days, we have proper quotas, and if someone tries to send an 800M email, they can't even get out the starting gate, because it's way over the max message size.  Also, if a message would put the mailbox over quota, and it's not from the system itself, it's not accepted.



  • I envy you. We have a 100MB quota with a 80MB warning level. When a coworker sends a 5MB PPS with adorable kittens, he is beaten to death. It's fun, but we're starting to run out of coworkers.



  • @tgape said:

    These days, we have proper quotas, and if someone tries to send an 800M email, they can't even get out the starting gate, because it's way over the max message size.  Also, if a message would put the mailbox over quota, and it's not from the system itself, it's not accepted.
     

    Why not just buy more storage and stop harassing your users with petty quota issues? The time it takes for your IT guys to buy and add more storage is orders of magnitude less than the time you're wasting forcing everybody to clean up their email accounts.

    The purpose of IT should be to get out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy people with warning messages.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @tgape said:

    These days, we have proper quotas, and if someone tries to send an 800M email, they can't even get out the starting gate, because it's way over the max message size.  Also, if a message would put the mailbox over quota, and it's not from the system itself, it's not accepted.
     

    Why not just buy more storage and stop harassing your users with petty quota issues? The time it takes for your IT guys to buy and add more storage is orders of magnitude less than the time you're wasting forcing everybody to clean up their email accounts.

    The purpose of IT should be to get out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy people with warning messages.

    Erm, an 800MB email is never going to work*. It doesn't matter how much storage space your email server has. Even if you configure your server to send it, the recipient server probably won't accept it. Even with 100mbits of bandwidth, that email will take over a minute to transmit, far too long for most mail servers with significant amounts of users.


    • At least not with current levels of bandwidth.

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    The purpose of IT should be to get out of the way and let everybody else get
    work done,
    Indeed. However, since 'IT' is not a profit generating department, they're usually found guilty of making themselves visible by issuing dictats that, in the real world make no sense to, justify their existance.



    In my last job (Windows programming) they helpfully decided to block certain websites that included the help forum for the software we were using. They also helpfully restricted all PCs from being able to install software. Requiring our department (which needed to have numerous versions of the software we were using) to request that one of the IT bods install the next version of the software on our PC's without obliterating any of the previous versions. (The fact we needed more than one version on our PC's is a separate WTF.) 3 days was usual for it to be successfully done. Weeks if they fucked it up. Left to our own devices it would have been less than 3 hours (well at least for those of us who knew what we were doing.)



    Having been bitten by IT's ineptitude of being able to install said software too many times, I came up with a (written) script of what needed to be done to ease the process. It got ignored.



    I've since learnt that the head of IT while I was there has 'left' (I don't have details) and apparently the bloke I gave a reference for now holds that position. Sadly the department I was in now apparently appears to consist of two people.



    btw, this was the IT department that enforced a USB restriction, and on learning that the software department (back then) legitimately, regularly used USB drives had the apparently bright idea of requiring a USB drive that was fingerprint activated to be used. One for the whole department. There were about 12 of us at the time. Now I know this was south-west England at the time, but still... (Google 'incest deformities' if you're unclear about that last reference.)



  • Ok, then pretend the quote in my post was this:

    These days, we have proper quotas....  Also, if a message would put the mailbox over
    quota, and it's not from the system itself, it's not accepted.

    Your correction doesn't change the point of my post at all, you're just ragging on a technicality. As long as the mail system has any quota at all that impacts users, my opinion is valid.

    And you know what? A really stellar mail system would figure out how to deliver that 800 MB attachment. It might pop it on a FTP server, then send the download link instead of the attachment along with the original text. That's neither here nor there, just thought I'd mention it. Computers should always just do what they're told, in the best way possible, without whining to users. No excuses.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @tgape said:

    These days, we have proper quotas, and if someone tries to send an 800M email, they can't even get out the starting gate, because it's way over the max message size.  Also, if a message would put the mailbox over quota, and it's not from the system itself, it's not accepted.
     

    Why not just buy more storage and stop harassing your users with petty quota issues? The time it takes for your IT guys to buy and add more storage is orders of magnitude less than the time you're wasting forcing everybody to clean up their email accounts.

    Umm, we've had this exact same discussion before, haven't we, and I pointed out that buying a new tray full of drives for a NetApp server costs in the low five figures, and even that's only if you get a cheap recon.  So, how exactly are the IT guys meant to just go out and spend fifteen grand out of their own pockets just so you don't have to bother tidying up your email once in a while?  Wait, what's that?  You say the firm should pay for it?  They should just submit a PO and wait for it to be approved?

    Yeah, they do that.  And management say, "What's the alternative to spending all this money?"  And IT tell them "Well, everyone could spend ten minutes once every few weeks to a month deleting the old emails out of their accounts".  And so management says "Well, then we're going to save the money and we're going to leave you to tell them to empty their accounts and take all the shit and complaints when you do so".  Although not in quite so many words. 

    @blakeyrat said:

    The purpose of IT should be to get out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy people with warning messages.

    Of course it fucking well is, you dick, but they don't actually get to write all the rules, they have stupid management dictats to obey just like everyone else - so why is it bad and their fault when they do, but just another WTF and management's fault when it's you having to do something the wrong way because management said so?

    If you start by assuming and implicitly accusing people of malice, and your unreasonable and selfish assumptions are based utterly on your own ignorance and nasty suspicious mind, maybe they're correct to think you're being a dick?  Because just assuming that whenever something you don't like happens it must be because someone did it deliberately on purpose just to get at you really is a mark of infantile and paranoid thinking.  Grow the fuck up, you must be awful to work with.  Do you not understand that you will get what you expect from life - and deserve it?




  • @DaveK said:

    Umm, we've had this exact same discussion before, haven't we, and I pointed out that buying a new tray full of drives for a NetApp server costs in the low five figures, and even that's only if you get a cheap recon.  So, how exactly are the IT guys meant to just go out and spend fifteen grand out of their own pockets just so you don't have to bother tidying up your email once in a while?  Wait, what's that?  You say the firm should pay for it?  They should just submit a PO and wait for it to be approved?
     

    Sure.

    @DaveK said:

    Yeah, they do that.  And management say, "What's the alternative to spending all this money?"  And IT tell them "Well, everyone could spend ten minutes once every few weeks to a month deleting the old emails out of their accounts".  And so management says "Well, then we're going to save the money and we're going to leave you to tell them to empty their accounts and take all the shit and complaints when you do so".  Although not in quite so many words. 

    Well, I'm sorry your management sucks.

    You also seem to be missing the point that I'm talking about how things should be, not necessarily how things are. I know I work for a good company that makes good decisions. You don't... that's too bad, but it doesn't change the fact that email quotas should not exist. (Notice the word 'should' there.)

    @DaveK said:

    Of course it fucking well is, you dick,

    Thanks for raising the level of discourse you donkey raping pile of horse excrement.

    @DaveK said:

    If you start by assuming and implicitly accusing people of malice,

    Please, where did I accuse you or anybody else of malice? Tell you what, wait until I actually type something before you react to it before declaring I "implicitly" said it. If I didn't explicitly say it, I didn't fucking say it. 

    @DaveK said:

    Because just assuming that whenever something you don't like happens it must be because someone did it deliberately on purpose just to get at you really is a mark of infantile and paranoid thinking.

    I'm not the one who assumed they did it on purpose, that was the other post. (The one not written by me.)

    In short, fuck off and die in a fire. Thank you.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Computers should always just do what they're told, in the best way possible, without whining to users. No excuses.
     

    Obvious troll detector is detecting obvious troll being obvious, obviously.

     



  • I have a grand idea! Let us disable quotas so users can send 800MB messages daily and we're buying new 1 TB drives hourly to store the idiot users' email inboxes.
    @blakeyrat said:

    @DaveK said:
    Yeah, they do that.  And management say, "What's the alternative to spending all this money?"  And IT tell them "Well, everyone could spend ten minutes once every few weeks to a month deleting the old emails out of their accounts".  And so management says "Well, then we're going to save the money and we're going to leave you to tell them to empty their accounts and take all the shit and complaints when you do so".  Although not in quite so many words. 

    Well, I'm sorry your management sucks.

    You also seem to be missing the point that I'm talking about how things should be, not necessarily how things are. I know I work for a good company that makes good decisions. You don't... that's too bad, but it doesn't change the fact that email quotas should not exist. (Notice the word 'should' there.)
    Without quotas it's a race between the admins to prevent the users from filling the server's hard-drive and the users to fill the hard-drive. Given the opertunity users will cease deleting emails they don't need. Alternatively you can force the clients to download emails from the server, at which point the deskside guys will have to deal with nuked email when a computer goes kapput. Quotas exist because it isn't the SA's job to babysit the users, it is their job to enable users to work within reasonable restraints. Quotas are reasonable restraints. If you can't survive with a 1GB (hell, even 250MB is large enough in many cases, anything smaller than that is stupid though) inbox quota there is something horrifyingly wrong with you.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You also seem to be missing the point that I'm talking about how things should be, not necessarily how things are. I know I work for a good company that makes good decisions. You don't... that's too bad, but it doesn't change the fact that email quotas should not exist. (Notice the word 'should' there.)

    • It's generally not IT making these decisions.  The cost of the users pruning their mailboxes is invisible, and the profit centers are not willing to spend a smaller amount of money to recover that.  They're only willing to fund getting past the pain threshold of their upper management.

    • There are some users out there who will fill your disk if you let them.  Remember my scenario with the 800M email.  Had the email system had ten times as much disk space, it still would've filled.  Had it had a hundred times more disk space, we would have stopped the problem before it filled the disk - but only because we had monitors on the backbone mailhost system that would have noticed the problem before it went critical.  (However, it wasn't a directed alarm, and it was used to a lot of traffic during the day, so would've only triggered once it was sufficiently after hours.)  That wasn't my only tale of one user filling his email server with bounce messages - I got dozens.  That was just the easiest one to show how it quickly amassed to such an extent.  Ideally, there would still be quotas - but they'd be high enough the email retention policy would make them be completely invisible to most users.

    • We got to actually have message size limits due to some technical limitations on our virus scanning software regarding particular attachments.  However, before those issues were discovered, we never had a successful delivery of a 500M+ email to its intended recipient, despite years of users trying.  This was actually a statistic I did a lot of log file analysis to determine, because we were spending a lot of time dealing with very large emails that users sent, and we were looking for some way to stop the madness.  This statistic was based on 4 years of log files (I went out, looked for every message over 500M, and then checked my mail archive for an indication that we had to do something about it.  It took about a week, due to all of the hits, but I found matches for every one of them.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @DaveK said:

    If you start by assuming and implicitly accusing people of malice,

    Please, where did I accuse you or anybody else of malice? Tell you what, wait until I actually type something before you react to it before declaring I "implicitly" said it. If I didn't explicitly say it, I didn't fucking say it. 

     

    You said it right here:

    @blakeyrat said:

    The purpose of IT should be to get
    out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy
    people with warning messages.

    I don't care how you try and dodge responsibility for the implications of what you say, that is a blatant accusation of petty obstructionism.  Dress it up how you like, but the more you try and deny it, the more snide and underhand an accusation it becomes.




  • @DaveK said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    The purpose of IT should be to get
    out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy
    people with warning messages.

    I don't care how you try and dodge responsibility for the implications of what you say, that is a blatant accusation of petty obstructionism.  Dress it up how you like, but the more you try and deny it, the more snide and underhand an accusation it becomes.

     

    Am I the only one who sees the word "should" in that sentence? Do you need a refresher on what it means?

    There is no accusation in my sentence.

    If I say "people should not strangle kittens", am I implying that you strangle kittens every day? Is that how you read that sentence?

    How can I even post on a board where people can't read plain English? Look, I don't imply things... if I want to say it, I say it. If I didn't say it, it's only in your own fucking head and don't blame me for the delusions that only exist in your head. You're welcome to disagree with me. But don't fucking insult me based on your own fucking hallucinations.



  • Working with DaveK, a short play in two acts

    Act One

    [int. a typical office cube farm at 11:15 AM. Bob approaches DaveK's cube.)

    Bob: "Hey DaveK, we should do Mexican for lunch."

    DaveK: "Are you saying I'm racist?"

    Bob: "No--"

    DaveK (interrupting): "Are you saying I hate how asians drive really slow on the freeways?"

    Bob: "Wait, what? No! I didn't say that."

    DaveK: "Well you clearly said 'we should do Mexican for lunch.' I don't care how you try and dodge responsibility for the implications of what you say, that is a blatant accusation of racism against asians! Dress it up how you like, but the more you try and deny it, the more snide and underhand an accusation it becomes."

    [fade]

    Act Two

    [int. a small wood-paneled office with a closed door. A placard reading "Director of IT Services" is visible on the front of the desk. DaveK stands facing Boss who is behind the desk.]

    Boss: "DaveK, you're fired."

    [fade]

    Fin.



  • Quota's are so restrictive. you know what else? computers shouldn't warn or do anything when your disk runs out of space. they should just delete the oldest files without prompting. god forbid you get a message about a full disk.

     

    The quota system was essentially designed to prevent one user or a set of user from monopolizing the available disk space. If you have 5000 users and you have a TB drive, that's about 209MB for each user. Now, a lot of these accounts might be dormant or unused, and a lot of them might be super active and sending out lolcat spam. you want to keep the lolcat spammers from filling the disk with lolcats but you want to make sure that most of the other users can at least recieve the auto-erotic asphysxiation video bstorer made with his cat, Sparkles VI. this is why a quota would be set to, say, 800MB. not everybody can <use> 800MB, not everybody will use 800MB, but it sets a ceiling value.In a scenario where all accounts are active the quota would probaby be set a little lower, to prevent disk space concerns.

     

     

    the quota is on the server. you can download your lolcats to your local machine and save them there. The server shouldn't be responsible for storing your lolcat zips for years and years or your "granny and morbs get anal.mpg" video that got sent around the office.How those two cleaning a house was amusing I haven't a clue.

     @blakeyrat said:

    If I say "people should not strangle kittens", am I implying that you
    strangle kittens every day? Is that how you read that sentence? 

     

    Well, since nobody has mentioned anything about kittens being strangled one can only assume that you yourself are a kitten strangler and feel extremely guilty or suspect others of being kitten stranglers. If you are indeed a kitten strangler, you may be spending too much time with bstorer,morbs and btk, I hear they make a hobby of strangling kittens with their members.They won't let me practice with them because I stare. It's hard not too.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I don't imply things
     

    ?

    O_O

    @blakeyrat said:

    If I say "people should not strangle kittens", am I implying that you strangle kittens every day?

    Short answer: Yes.

    Nuanced answer: You imply in that sentence that a relevant subject in the discussion has strangled at least 1 kitten, otherwise the sentence would not exist. Translated back to our original discussion: you just accused 1 or more people here who work in IT of annoying users. Perhaps they didn't like that.

    But I'm not sure why DaveK reacted so strongly. His avatar is a water bird. Should roll like right off his back. Lol.

    I'm going to see what we do at my office, and maybe recommend email quotas. 

    @blakeyrat said:

    The purpose of IT should be to get
    out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy
    people with warning messages.

    We do not live in this ideal world*. Continuing ad nauseum to argue how things should be is
    counterproductive. It's not championing; it's not idealism; it's not
    visionary; it's just complaining.  Coulda shoulda woulda.

    If you find yourself in an environment that is good for IT, with
    competent, responsible users, then good for you! You're living the
    dream! But that doesn't mean your ways are law and best practice.

    I suppose that what you mean by  "IT should be to get
    out of the way" is that technology should get out of the way, which is a very hard problem. Am I supposing correctly?

     

    *) "this ideal world" being the one where human beings are competent and responsible users. They are not. They wil fuck up your shit. You will impose reasonable restrictions that are not necessarily on the far egde of technological ability but may lie comfortably within it. That's because using technology to its fullest to get out of the user's way requires that you are a perfect IT-creature, and that you have, for all your tech-intents and tech-purposes, an unlimited supply of time, money and energy. That is not the case.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Am I the only one who sees the word "should" in that sentence? Do you need a refresher on what it means?

    Sorry, we'll remember to take all of your comments out of context in the future.

    Yes, you used the word "should," but it was used in response to some actions taken by some IT department. If you didn't mean it in that context, perhaps you could have stated this. We can't read the words on the page and the words in your head.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Yes, you used the word "should," but it was used in response to some actions taken by some IT department.

    No it wasn't... that's in your head, too.

    @boomzilla said:

    We can't read the words on the page and the words in your head.

    And I can't possibly defend my statements against something solely in your head. That sentence wasn't "in response to some actions taken by some IT department." I don't know where you got that idea, but it wasn't from me.

    Look, if you're just going to ding me about things in your imagination, then at least be creative. For example, when I say, "email servers should have no quota", you can reply with, "yes, but we already know that the Jupiterians are going to attack, you idiot, what we're worried about is the lizard people under area 51!" See, it's still solely in your head, but now it's amusing.



  • @dhromed said:

    Nuanced answer: You imply in that sentence that a relevant subject in the discussion has strangled at least 1 kitten, otherwise the sentence would not exist. Translated back to our original discussion: you just accused 1 or more people here who work in IT of annoying users. Perhaps they didn't like that.

    I didn't accuse anybody in this thread of anything. I dare you (or DaveK for that matter) to show otherwise. I'd love to see the exact text I wrote that accused anybody in this thread annoying users.

    @dhromed said:

    We do not live in this ideal world*. Continuing ad nauseum to argue how things should be is
    counterproductive. It's not championing; it's not idealism; it's not
    visionary; it's just complaining.  Coulda shoulda woulda.
     

    How is it not idealism? It's the very definition of idealism, and that was my point exactly.

    And yet, that doesn't justify people putting words into my mouth, then reacting as if I said them.

    @dhromed said:

    If you find yourself in an environment that is good for IT, with
    competent, responsible users, then good for you! You're living the
    dream! But that doesn't mean your ways are law and best practice.

    My ways are best practice in my opinion. You're welcome to hold your own opinion. It can even (shock, horror) be different than my opinion. I'm fine with that.

    @dhromed said:

    I suppose that what you mean by  "IT should be to get
    out of the way" is that technology should get out of the way, which is a very hard problem. Am I supposing correctly?

    I wasn't commenting on the difficulty at all.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, you used the word "should," but it was used in response to some actions taken by some IT department.

    No it wasn't... that's in your head, too.

    Let's look at your original post:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @tgape said:
    These days, we have proper quotas, and if someone tries to send an 800M email, they can't even get out the starting gate, because it's way over the max message size. Also, if a message would put the mailbox over quota, and it's not from the system itself, it's not accepted.

    Why not just buy more storage and stop harassing your users with petty quota issues? The time it takes for your IT guys to buy and add more storage is orders of magnitude less than the time you're wasting forcing everybody to clean up their email accounts.

    The purpose of IT should be to get out of the way and let everybody else get work done, not to annoy people with warning messages.

    TLDR:

    • tgape: we have quotas and max sizes for messages
    • blakeyrat: you're harassing users with quotas and size restrictions...instead you should submit to whatever the users say

    Sorry, but DaveK seems to be completely correct. If that's not what you meant, then it just means that you aren't communicating well at all.



  • Ok, this is driving me batty. One last thing before I unsubscribe and pretend this thread doesn't exist:

    If I didn't intend to accuse anybody of annoying their users, and I didn't explicitly type same, I did not say it.

    I didn't think it. I didn't intend to say it. I didn't actually type it. It was not said. QED.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Ok, this is driving me batty. One last thing before I unsubscribe and pretend this thread doesn't exist:

    If I didn't intend to accuse anybody of annoying their users, and I didn't explicitly type same, I did not say it.

    I didn't think it. I didn't intend to say it. I didn't actually type it. It was not said. QED.

    You can pad your tiny little dream world with denial as much as you want, fact is that I, as a complete outsider to the discussion, interpreted your original post as hostile and condescending, too.



  • @Lingerance said:

    Quotas exist because it isn't the SA's job to babysit the users, it is their job to enable users to work within reasonable restraints. Quotas are reasonable restraints. If you can't survive with a 1GB (hell, even 250MB is large enough in many cases, anything smaller than that is stupid though) inbox quota there is something horrifyingly wrong with you.

    Another problem that instead of adding a bunch of 1GB SATA disks, corporate IT will use the most expensive 15K rpm SAS disks that cost about 100 times as much per GB. Not kidding. And install them to the world slowest storage appliance, instead of a simple Samba box that runs circles around that shitty appliance.



  • Are you sure it's not spam? 

    Terrible, terrible, day old spam?

     

    In other news, hooray for an email quota larger than the 100MB I get on my company email, and boo for using up ONE GIG OF IT.  I mean seriously, WTF?



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Are you sure it's not spam? 

    Terrible, terrible, day old spam?

     

    In other news, hooray for an email quota larger than the 100MB I get on my company email, and boo for using up ONE GIG OF IT.  I mean seriously, WTF?

    AFAIK it wasn't spam; he actually got it to me on the 8th, I just was too lazy to fix the post.

    We used to have 250MB limits, but I guess they threw sensible restrictions out when the hired the full time IT staff? It wouldn't be the first WTF they've done, and I don't expect it to be the last. AFAIK the entire company is still one mailbox store (~150 employees, so still small), and I recall somewhere that single large users can have a significantly adverse effect on the speed of the entire exchange system (at least on 2K3). At least that was the Kool-Aid I was sold on why the old limits needed to be enforced.



  • @rad131304 said:

    I recall somewhere that single large users can have a significantly adverse effect on the speed of the entire exchange system (at least on 2K3). At least that was the Kool-Aid I was sold on why the old limits needed to be enforced.
    IIRC Exchange uses PSTs, which in my experience are full of annoying nuances.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.