 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | reply to donoreo
Re: Mailbox sizes... WTF...?!?!?! Some of their arguments against larger mailboxes were in turn related to the number of users: Larger mailboxes x 10,000+ users is a lot of disk space, # of backup tapes req'd, etc
Realistically though, not every user will max out their quota.
Ironically, we were nailed by Sarbanes-Oxley for data retention, but IT still made it the user's problem to handle. |
|
| reply to donoreo
I allow up to 50MB attachments on the Receive connector for Exchange 2012 because we deal with banks and other "secure" places that aren't allowed to use certain protocols (FTP) or sites (Dropbox & Google Drive blocked), USB Mas Storage devices are obviously blocked as well via Group Policy so the only way for them to get sometimes hundreds of pages of documents is via email (or physical mail, FedEx/UPS/USPS).
Our send connector could be 100MB but I've found basically nobody can accept that anyways so I've set it at 20MB 
My Inbox of 2yrs now is like 5.7GB with about 12,000 messages in Outlook. I've set a 10GB limit anyways so better start cleaning up or no more emails for you!  |
|
 veunadWhat Does This Do?Premium
join:1999-08-06
Alpharetta, GA | reply to PToN
Is this normal usage or have you ruled out the Exchange iOS BUG? (Not sure if you have exchange).
Example:
We took some dramatic pre-engagement actions of cutting off active sync access for 400ish iOS users, when the iOS 6.0X bug was first communicated, made them turn off calendaring, contact the helpdesk, etc, to get Active sync (re)enabled.
Week or so goes by; we have had two users still get bit, and one had a 30GB mailbox, we were able to run a PowerShell command to kill the offending entry, the other though had a number of users using a recurring meeting, this specific users mailbox scaled to 130GB (6-7 meeting created every second or so). Had to drop the mailbox completely.
More on topic, we have a 10MB perimeter attachment limit for primary channels, (Secondary channels have 25MB), the mailboxes are limited to 2GB and prevent sending when this is exceeded; warning sent at 1.8GB.
When first looking into the iOS BUG, of the iOS users, 2/3 had mailboxes in the 1-1.5GB range. |
|
 PToN
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX | as mentioned, we dont run Exchange. We run Postfix+Dovecot |
|
| reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:Also one feature of exchange (similar to dedup) I'm told "single instance" (or atleast that's what I recall it being called by a IT manager)
MS removed SIMS in Exchange 2010. They published a long and rambling explanation about why. It had something to do with cheap disk space and a performance increase.
The vast majority of these huge mailboxes I see is just laziness. A quick inspection of the user's inbox, sent, and deleted folders typically reveal tens of thousands of emails; they just never clean anything up.
I've given up harping about it. I just tell clients they either change the habits of users or throw money at the problem. Except the few still on Exchange 2003 who have hit the max database size and are forced to cleanup, they all choose to spend money. |
|
 DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Ya just sort the sent items by size and look out. |
|
 MJimLayAKA FlexBaudPremium
join:2004-10-06
Pensacola, FL
kudos:2 | reply to PToN
I will say that it isn't usual.
The largest exchange mailbox I know we have is well over 100+ GB, and the largest I personally have ran across was 65+ GB. I run across 20+ GB mailboxes on a daily basis. |
|
|
|
 DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2
 ·Covad Communicat..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to lorennerol
said by lorennerol:said by DarkLogix:Also one feature of exchange (similar to dedup) I'm told "single instance" (or atleast that's what I recall it being called by a IT manager)
MS removed SIMS in Exchange 2010. They published a long and rambling explanation about why. It had something to do with cheap disk space and a performance increase. Way back when a domain consisted of servers that mostly sat within a short cable hop of each other, it made sense to single-instance attachments. Now that the servers can be all around the planet it poses countless issues to maintain sync and consistency...attachments or not.
For the enlightenment of the unrepentant recalcitrants, I stage the occasional "blow away the mailbox" demonstrations. After dumping to a PST and copying it to a couple of locations, I press the magic *POOF!* button and wipe their messages out of existence. Daddy does his magic and fixes and tells them they have until COB the next day to get it cleaned up and to keep it clean because it could happen again...and you never know when it will be something that can't be recovered. A few times the mortal didn't comply so I did it again and "could only recover" the last month's worth of stuff that was in the inbox. Followed up with a memo to them and their bosses that the mortals were warned, did not heed, violated policy, and I would hear no further complaining about the matter. The message was received and understood. (Always make sure you have copies so you can retrieve anything truly critical.)
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following." |
|
Netkeys
join:2000-12-08
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to PToN
I have a number of insurance agency's for clients and there top performers and agents handling commercial account can generate about 30 gig's a year easily. I was looking at new hosting services and finally decided to stick with gmail business and start achieving with Mailstore. The problem with insurance agencies is you have to save ever message for legal reasons.
With Mailstore I can backup (archive) nightly and delete from Gmail when close to limit and it has a Outlook plug in so access to the archived messages is quick and easy. Also if there is a problem with Gmail or internet access they still have access to the archives on the local server. Is the best and happens to be the most cost effective option I could find.
Having the legal requirements really takes more options away. |
|
 chip89
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH | reply to DC DSL
Outlook has a tool that can be configured to purge the inbox based on information that the user tells it when to do so. The tool is called sweep. |
|
Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to PToN
At my workplace we used to have really large mailboxes. We've been restricted to 1 GB and soon to 500 MB. If we go over we can still receive but not send any mail until it's been cleaned up.
The rationale:
Basically someone decided that public disclosure / privacy laws make email a liability. There is a system that individual email can be archived to the network drive so if someone needs to keep copies for legal or archival reasons they can. The bottom line is that we've been told email is not to be a long term storage and archiving system. |
|
DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Covad Communicat..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to chip89
said by chip89:Outlook has a tool that ...
I know. I was trying to stick to generics since a lot of folks these days seem to not be able to stretch concepts. I get a lot of "But you said such-and-such! You mean I also can do that with XYZ?"
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following." |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | reply to graniterock
said by graniterock: Basically someone decided that public disclosure / privacy laws make email a liability. There is a system that individual email can be archived to the network drive so if someone needs to keep copies for legal or archival reasons they can. Hehe, a number of the smarter users started archiving their email to network drives and got slapped down. The same argument about disk space, tape backups, etc was used. Users were in a no-win situation... |
|
 KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
1 edit | reply to PToN
Our mailbox size is 100MB, yes MB. There are some users that have been increased to 250MB, but that's the limit. We have the ability to create PST files for long term storage and I've seen 12GB PST files.
While I find that 100MB is really too small for most people to function normally without having to create archives. I have archives for things like shippers, license proof, and things I know I'll need later in life. The rest of my mail is purged every other month. |
|
 ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | Our mailbox size at work is 50MB with a 58MB hard cap. My calendar alone is like 12-15MB. That makes it difficult to manage.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
| reply to PToN
I don't host my own email server for my business but I have one with an unlimited IMAP box. Very cheap. Why not transition one to an unlimited mailbox? |
|
DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Covad Communicat..
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by obeythelaw:I don't host my own email server for my business but I have one with an unlimited IMAP box. Very cheap. Why not transition one to an unlimited mailbox?
As has been pointed out, there are many issues facing businesses larger than a handful of employees. If OP is in a regulated industry, or the organization has other evidentiary requirements, options and practices are constrained by them. Even though I'm a small business, I am required to conform to the rules governing my clients wrt email storage and data security practices. My business only uses Gmail's POP and SMTP facilities; I segregate my personal email so it is not commingled with the business correspondence. So, while your solution may work well for you, it won't scale to those of us with more advanced business requirements.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following." |
|
 MsradellP.E.Premium
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to PToN
Having a huge collection of messages stored in a person's mailbox is just sloppy data retention. That storage is far from being secure as most other storage methods and most major corporations severely limit the size and length of time documents can be saved there.
I used to work for a major international Corp. and anything in our mailboxes was automatically deleted after 90 days! Maybe not the best system, but it certainly ensured that we kept them cleaned up. |
|
| reply to Hall
said by Hall:Must be nice.... at my old job, a major corporation, they still restricted users to a 500mb mailbox. Anything above that, you have to store locally. Now, I'm not saying give every users a multi-gigabyte mailbox, but 500mb was painful to work with.
They did that at work a few years back and I just made my network drive my "local storage" to piss off the IT director. |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | reply to PToN
At a small business I worked for, a big chunk of the mailboxes were consumed by scan-to-email attachments.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.
|
|
