Hello,

I have a question about archiving emails

We are using Exchange 2003. In general, the office employees use
Outlook 2003 while the shop floor employees use Outlook Web Access.
They don't have Outlook. I think that we're not working with OWA like
most companies do. I presume that in most companies the OWA-users also
have Outlook. But not over here.

For those who have Outlook, archiving is no problem: they can use .pst
files.
But how can you archive in OWA? (except for printing all your emails)

I have already investigated 3 possibilities that we probably won't
use:
* DistributeOutlook to the OWA-users (this means a substancially
increased software license cost + work hours to configure mail
profiles on pcs with multiple users)
* Server side archiving (this means purchasing a very costly third-
party product)
* Drastically increasing the mail quota (only useful if Exchange
diskspace is less expensive than fileshare diskspace)

PS: this is not a technical question, but a question about cost.
PPS: I asked the same question but in Dutch, in
news:microsoft.public.nl.office.outlook

Amedee

You need to take a step back in this first; do you really need to have
client side archives?

There is a mail quota for a reason and that's not just technical; your
company decides how much mail you actually need to archive. If that is
everything (for legal matters for instance) you should invest in a
server-side archiving method. You're only looking at disk costs and product
costs which is not the entire picture. Think about all the users you are
bothering with them having to manually archive. Think about the pst-files
that need to be managed, moved, repaired etc... Think about the mails that
can get lost. A server-side is centrally managed and therefore the company
is much more in control about things; also when you need to collect just
that 1 email for something. Adding up all those costs and saving and you'll
find out a server-side archiving solution isn't that much more expensive
after all and might actually be cheaper. In the end, all it could take is 1
angry customer and 1 lost email...

If you want a technical solution for the OWA pst issue, take a look at this
addin for Exchange;
http://www.everywherenetworks.net/owa-pstway.php

> Drastically increasing the mail quota (only useful if Exchange
> diskspace is less expensive than fileshare diskspace)
I hope you are aware of the fact that connecting to pst-files stored on a
network share is both not recommended and supported by Microsoft and could
lead to (besides poor performance) to data corruption and data loss.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Amedee Van Gasse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c114063f-51c8-4d0c-9636-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hello,
>
> I have a question about archiving emails
>
> We are using Exchange 2003. In general, the office employees use
> Outlook 2003 while the shop floor employees use Outlook Web Access.
> They don't have Outlook. I think that we're not working with OWA like
> most companies do. I presume that in most companies the OWA-users also
> have Outlook. But not over here.
>
> For those who have Outlook, archiving is no problem: they can use .pst
> files.
> But how can you archive in OWA? (except for printing all your emails)
>
> I have already investigated 3 possibilities that we probably won't
> use:
> * DistributeOutlook to the OWA-users (this means a substancially
> increased software license cost + work hours to configure mail
> profiles on pcs with multiple users)
> * Server side archiving (this means purchasing a very costly third-
> party product)
> * Drastically increasing the mail quota (only useful if Exchange
> diskspace is less expensive than fileshare diskspace)
>
> PS: this is not a technical question, but a question about cost.
> PPS: I asked the same question but in Dutch, in
> news:microsoft.public.nl.office.outlook
>
> Amedee

On 3 dec, 10:32, "Roady [MVP]"
<newsgroups_DELETE_@_DELETE_sparnaaij_NO_._SPAM_net> wrote:
> You need to take a step back in this first; do you really need to have
> client side archives?
>
> There is a mail quota for a reason and that's not just technical; your
> company decides how much mail you actually need to archive. If that is
> everything (for legal matters for instance) you should invest in a
> server-side archiving method. You're only looking at disk costs and product
> costs which is not the entire picture. Think about all the users you are
> bothering with them having to manually archive. Think about the pst-files
> that need to be managed, moved, repaired etc... Think about the mails that
> can get lost. A server-side is centrally managed and therefore the company
> is much more in control about things; also when you need to collect just
> that 1 email for something. Adding up all those costs and saving and you'll
> find out a server-side archiving solution isn't that much more expensive
> after all and might actually be cheaper. In the end, all it could take is 1
> angry customer and 1 lost email...

I got instructions from my manager to reduce _print_ costs.
Yes, print costs, you read it right.
A lot of people print emails because they cannot archive.

Personally, I am really really *really* convinced that you are right
and that a server-side solution has the lowest total cost of
ownership.
Actually, you should talk to my managers. You know, it's the economy.
3% of the organisation (9000 people worldwide) is being "downsized" so
that gives you a pretty good idea which company I work for...

> If you want a technical solution for the OWA pst issue, take a look at this
> addin for Exchange;http://www.everywherenetworks.net/owa-pstway.php

Thank you. I just found that one too. But I don't like it, because of
the paragraph below.

> > Drastically increasing the mail quota (only useful if Exchange
> > diskspace is less expensive than fileshare diskspace)
>
> I hope you are aware of the fact that connecting to pst-files stored on a
> network share is both not recommended and supported by Microsoft and could
> lead to (besides poor performance) to data corruption and data loss.

Yes, I am very much aware that using pst-files on a network share is a
guaranteed way to corrupt them.
Believe me, I *really* know that.

--
Amedee

> Actually, you should talk to my managers.
I'm happy to do so. I might have an opening at the beginning of next year.
I'm Dutch myself and have recently moved to Germany and in the process of
founding my own consultancy firm ;-)

I hope for your but also their sake that they will come to their senses by
themselves. You seemed to be informed right about the issue already both
technically and financially and that it is not about how much you can save
now but about how much more you can save in the future. With a company of
that size you'd earn back the investment already probably before the economy
is back on its feet. Also, a company of that size should have never allowed
the use of pst-files to begin with.

Good luck!

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

http://www.msoutlook.info/
Real World Questions, Real World Answers

-----

"Amedee Van Gasse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47c3edee-8ebf-4813-8b4c-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 3 dec, 10:32, "Roady [MVP]"
> <newsgroups_DELETE_@_DELETE_sparnaaij_NO_._SPAM_net> wrote:
>> You need to take a step back in this first; do you really need to have
>> client side archives?
>>
>> There is a mail quota for a reason and that's not just technical; your
>> company decides how much mail you actually need to archive. If that is
>> everything (for legal matters for instance) you should invest in a
>> server-side archiving method. You're only looking at disk costs and
>> product
>> costs which is not the entire picture. Think about all the users you are
>> bothering with them having to manually archive. Think about the pst-files
>> that need to be managed, moved, repaired etc... Think about the mails
>> that
>> can get lost. A server-side is centrally managed and therefore the
>> company
>> is much more in control about things; also when you need to collect just
>> that 1 email for something. Adding up all those costs and saving and
>> you'll
>> find out a server-side archiving solution isn't that much more expensive
>> after all and might actually be cheaper. In the end, all it could take is
>> 1
>> angry customer and 1 lost email...
>
> I got instructions from my manager to reduce _print_ costs.
> Yes, print costs, you read it right.
> A lot of people print emails because they cannot archive.
>
> Personally, I am really really *really* convinced that you are right
> and that a server-side solution has the lowest total cost of
> ownership.
> Actually, you should talk to my managers. You know, it's the economy.
> 3% of the organisation (9000 people worldwide) is being "downsized" so
> that gives you a pretty good idea which company I work for...
>
>> If you want a technical solution for the OWA pst issue, take a look at
>> this
>> addin for Exchange;http://www.everywherenetworks.net/owa-pstway.php
>
> Thank you. I just found that one too. But I don't like it, because of
> the paragraph below.
>
>> > Drastically increasing the mail quota (only useful if Exchange
>> > diskspace is less expensive than fileshare diskspace)
>>
>> I hope you are aware of the fact that connecting to pst-files stored on a
>> network share is both not recommended and supported by Microsoft and
>> could
>> lead to (besides poor performance) to data corruption and data loss.
>
> Yes, I am very much aware that using pst-files on a network share is a
> guaranteed way to corrupt them.
> Believe me, I *really* know that.
>
> --
> Amedee

On 3 dec, 15:01, "Roady [MVP]"
<newsgroups_DELETE_@_DELETE_sparnaaij_NO_._SPAM_net> wrote:
> > Actually, you should talk to my managers.
>
> I'm happy to do so. I might have an opening at the beginning of next year.
> I'm Dutch myself and have recently moved to Germany and in the process of
> founding my own consultancy firm ;-)
>
> I hope for your but also their sake that they will come to their senses by
> themselves. You seemed to be informed right about the issue already both
> technically and financially and that it is not about how much you can save
> now but about how much more you can save in the future. With a company of
> that size you'd earn back the investment already probably before the economy
> is back on its feet. Also, a company of that size should have never allowed
> the use of pst-files to begin with.
>
> Good luck!

Thank you.

I could convince my immediate manager of two proposals:
* short term: increase mail quota where needed (100 MiB is really
small for some users)
* long term (probably >6m): server-side backup
Chances are that I won't be around to see that ever happen. :-/

Perhaps I should also consider the consultancy business... ;-)

--
Amedee