Is there any reason to use Cached Exchange Mode w/ Outlook 2003 if your
Deliver new e-mail to the following location is set to a hard drive PST?
From what I've read, the answer would seem to be "no".
Thanks!
ST

Are you using Exchange at all? IF yes, then you will need Cached Exchange
Mode for the enhanced Junk Mail filtering to work.

--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Shauna T asked:

| Is there any reason to use Cached Exchange Mode w/ Outlook 2003 if
| your Deliver new e-mail to the following location is set to a hard
| drive PST? From what I've read, the answer would seem to be "no".
| Thanks!
| ST

On a corporate Exchange Server. Using Outlook 2003, just trying to
determine benefits (if any) of using Cached Exchange Mode. Everything I
read speaks to creating a copy of your inbox on your hard drive, but if you
have your email delivered to your hard drive to begin with, not seeing the
benefit.

Thanks - ST


"Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]"
wrote in message
...
Are you using Exchange at all? IF yes, then you will need Cached Exchange
Mode for the enhanced Junk Mail filtering to work.

--�
Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook]

Post all replies to the group to keep the discussion intact. All
unsolicited mail sent to my personal account will be deleted without
reading.

After furious head scratching, Shauna T asked:

| Is there any reason to use Cached Exchange Mode w/ Outlook 2003 if
| your Deliver new e-mail to the following location is set to a hard
| drive PST? From what I've read, the answer would seem to be "no".
| Thanks!
| ST

The real question is, why are you delivering the data to a PST file and thus losing most of the advantages of Exchange over other mail servers?

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Shauna T" wrote in message ...
Is there any reason to use Cached Exchange Mode w/ Outlook 2003 if your
Deliver new e-mail to the following location is set to a hard drive PST?
From what I've read, the answer would seem to be "no".
Thanks!
ST

Wow. Other than corporate invoked limitations on server / inbox file sizes
which make it virtually impossible for an employee to completely run off the
server, I guess maybe what you're trying to say (not exactly nicely) is "in
this day and age, there is no benefit to having mail delivered to your hard
drive. While end users may have configured their client to do this in the
past and have never been advised or educated to do so differently, the
Outlook 2003 Cached Exchange Mode should handle their online/offline needs
in the best manner"
???
ST

"Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
The real question is, why are you delivering the data to a PST file and thus
losing most of the advantages of Exchange over other mail servers?

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Shauna T" wrote in message
...
Is there any reason to use Cached Exchange Mode w/ Outlook 2003 if your
Deliver new e-mail to the following location is set to a hard drive PST?
From what I've read, the answer would seem to be "no".
Thanks!
ST

Shauna T wrote:

Wow. Other than corporate invoked limitations on server / inbox file
sizes which make it virtually impossible for an employee to
completely run off the server, I guess maybe what you're trying to
say (not exactly nicely) is "in this day and age, there is no benefit
to having mail delivered to your hard drive.

What Sue is saying is that with the delivery location set to a PST you lose
the ability to share mailboxes, others can't see your free/busy information,
and you also lack some of the other features that make using Exchange a good
business decision.

Many companies (mine included) limit the mailbox size. You're better off,
in my opinion, leaving your delivery location on the Exchange server and
using rules or manual procedures to sort incoming mail to appropriate local
PST folders and keeping your non-mail data like Contacts, Calendar, and so
on on the Exchange server. This greatly mitigates the inconveniences of
smaller mailbox quotas while still providing most of the benefits of using
Exchange in the first place.
--
Brian Tillman

Thank you Brian. I've received a lot of input rgearding why we should not
have mail delivered to the hard drive, but no direct input to the Cached
Exchange Mode question. I'll assume my translation of what I've read is
correct and that IF someone is having their mail delivered to their hard
drive, there is no benefit for using Cache Exchange Mode.
Thanks again - ST



"Brian Tillman" wrote in message
...
Shauna T wrote:

Wow. Other than corporate invoked limitations on server / inbox file
sizes which make it virtually impossible for an employee to
completely run off the server, I guess maybe what you're trying to
say (not exactly nicely) is "in this day and age, there is no benefit
to having mail delivered to your hard drive.

What Sue is saying is that with the delivery location set to a PST you
lose the ability to share mailboxes, others can't see your free/busy
information, and you also lack some of the other features that make using
Exchange a good business decision.

Many companies (mine included) limit the mailbox size. You're better off,
in my opinion, leaving your delivery location on the Exchange server and
using rules or manual procedures to sort incoming mail to appropriate
local PST folders and keeping your non-mail data like Contacts, Calendar,
and so on on the Exchange server. This greatly mitigates the
inconveniences of smaller mailbox quotas while still providing most of the
benefits of using Exchange in the first place.
--
Brian Tillman

No. What I'm saying is that when you make a PST file your default delivery location, a number of not exactly nice things happen:

-- Unless you are meticulous about making your own backups, the data in the .pst file won't be backed up like data in your Exchange mailbox is. Therefore, if your .pst file becomes corrupted, your data is lost.

-- When you accept meeting requests or click the New | Appointment command to create a new appointment, those appointments go into the Calendar folder in your .pst file. The Calendar folder in your mailbox remains empty, unless you explicitly create an appointment in that folder, and thus no one in your organization has an accurate picture of your free/busy availability.

-- You can't access your Outlook data from any other machine on the company network or from outside the company using Outlook Web Access, because it's not on the server. It's in the local PST file.

If the mailbox size limit is an issue, then the better question to ask would be, How can I keep my mailbox down to the allowed size and still have access to all the data I need? The exact answer is going to depend on what that key data consists of. Automatic archiving of older data and Rules Wizard rules are two important tools that can help you put some data into .PST files while not abandoning the features of the Exchange mailbox.

What Cached Exchange mode adds, BTW, is the maintenance of a replica of your mailbox on the local hard drive so that you can keep working if the network connection to your Exchange mailbox is broken for any reason. You also get junk mail processing and generally faster performance, because Outlook doesn't have to go to the server for things like the address book.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Shauna T" wrote in message ...
Wow. Other than corporate invoked limitations on server / inbox file sizes
which make it virtually impossible for an employee to completely run off the
server, I guess maybe what you're trying to say (not exactly nicely) is "in
this day and age, there is no benefit to having mail delivered to your hard
drive. While end users may have configured their client to do this in the
past and have never been advised or educated to do so differently, the
Outlook 2003 Cached Exchange Mode should handle their online/offline needs
in the best manner"
???
ST

"Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message
...
The real question is, why are you delivering the data to a PST file and thus
losing most of the advantages of Exchange over other mail servers?

"Shauna T" wrote in message
...
Is there any reason to use Cached Exchange Mode w/ Outlook 2003 if your
Deliver new e-mail to the following location is set to a hard drive PST?
From what I've read, the answer would seem to be "no".