 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | reply to PToN
Re: Mailbox sizes... WTF...?!?!?! 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. |
|
 donoreoPremium
join:2002-05-30
North York, ON | 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.
Bigger companies tend to have smaller email sizes. I am working for the largest organisation I have worked work for and we have the smallest mailbox size.
--
The irony of common sense, it is not that common.
I cannot deny anything I did not say.
A kitten dies every time someone uses "then" and "than" incorrectly.
I mock people who give their children odd spelling of names. |
|
HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | 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 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. |
|
|
|
