Posted on 03/26/2016 10:47:59 AM PDT by ducttape45
I need an expert on Outlook 2013 and Exchange Server. Here is the reason why.
I work for the federal government at a local military base (hey, put those rocks down, right now!) and just recently Outlook 2013 was hoisted upon us. No one wanted it, no one asked for it, and everyone is complaining about it. Story for another time.
Outlook 2013 and 2016 has dropped a vital feature. If you go File, Account Settings, Account Settings, the very first tab is called "Email." At the bottom of that screen, at least versions 2010 and earlier, there is a method to have all incoming email routed to a local .PST file. That feature is no longer available. All incoming email is now put into an account on the Exchange server. That might be fine and dandy for normal users but for those who routinely send 50-100 MBs of data daily it's just not feasible, especially when you consider we only have 90 MB of data space available to each user. The email server is likely have a meltdown soon.
To get around that limitation, a rule could be set up to route all incoming email from the user's account on the Exchange server to a local .PST file. It couldn't entirely fix the problem Microsoft created because copies of sent emails, deleted emails and conversation history are all still directed to the users account on the Exchange server. More problems to work through.
I drafted up a tutorial based on this knowledge and what I found on the Internet and passed it along to folks. Well, wouldn't you know it, someone must have found out it because now we've been thrown another curveball.
The only way the rule to transfer emails could be set up is through the Rules and Alerts feature in Outlook. You click Rules, Manage Alerts and the menu to create alerts come up. At the top of that screen there is a dialog box called "Apply changes to this folder" and that is where we would indicate the Exchange server location in order to set up the rule.
Someone in their infinite wisdom is disabling that context menu. Without it, no one can set up the rule. And here's what's even stranger. That feature is not disabled on every computer. That tells me that perhaps there is something with a policy somewhere that enables the user to turn that feature on and off. I could be wrong but I'm hoping I'm not.
After all that, my priority is this:
1. I need to find out why "Apply changes to this folder" is active on some computers and not on others.
2. Is that a feature somewhere within Windows and/or Outlook that can be turned on.
Can anyone out there help me with this? It is causing great consternation (yes, that is a word) amongst my cohorts in crime and while I despise the government hierarchy as much as you do, I work with some very good people and I want to help fix this problem.
No, its an approved and managed system. Completely security and records compliant.
Tell me, how long will that last? I can fill up that 200 GBs in less than 1 hour if I wanted to. It's not a feasible option where I'm at. That's why we need to be able to regularly, and easily, transfer large amounts of data via email.
I have, above, explained how to mamage this situation. What i cannot and will not do is assist you with avoiding oversight.
If you want to know how to manage large files and email loads within the approved system, read above or freepmail me.
If you are honestly trying to somehow prevent DoD from access to emails transmitted over the DoD system then leave me out of your mess.
Turn on cached exchange mode in your client. FYI, the exchange server has to support this feature though (it’s enabled by default).
This is classic indicator of group policies hitting (being applied) on some computers and not others. A simple test to confirm or deny that it is group policy is to open a command prompt and type "gpupdate /force" (without the quotes). That forces the local machine to refresh the group policy settings.
There is a way that you can examine your group policies - both local and global - as long as you have workstation administrator rights. If you don't have local admin rights you can still see the local user policies. From a command prompt type "gpresult /h C:\1.html" (without the quotes) which retrieves the policies and redirects the output to a file named 1.html.
Your IT bully sounds very familiar. Good luck.
They have you at a disadvantage since, no matter what you do to redirect or hide "your" emails, they will have a copy that they can keep for as long as they like. There ends up being two copies of every email - their copy and yours. Most organizations, private, public or military will matter~of~factly inform you that those emails are THEIR property, not yours.
This is what has been so amusing about killary and her "I have my own server so I can delete stuff with impunity".
If all we did was transfer simple plain text emails back and forth that's one thing. 90 MBs would be more than enough room. But when you have large emails going back and forth from civilian contractors (take for instance construction contractors) to government employees, email being directed to a server location that only allocates 90 MBs of available space is simply not feasible, it's not a workable option. It's ludicrous, and for the government to demand it based on their supposed need to allow for easier discovery, and not on the need of the everyday user who they are making life much more difficult for to me rings of more government oversight where none is needed.
Looks like I could have been wrong to ask for help here.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Ping.
OK.
No obvious reason that couldn’t fit the bill.
I disagree. We're just looking out for ya ;'}
BlueNgold is telling ya true about attachments. Any organization that is worth their salt is already conversant about proper methods of transferring files efficiently and securely with accountability.
BTW: SharePoint isn't a terribly efficient file transfer mechanism. It's meant more for group document authoring and archiving. Someone (!) should be telling the people upstream that they need to looking into a better file transfer mechanism.
Who do you think you are, Hillary Clinton? Low level drones need everything to be backed up from the server. You have to be above the law to keep thinks in your personal PST file instead of on the server.
Management is trying to protect themselves when they have a big document production (either in litigation or a Congressional.) You are trying to subvert the process. (Have you ever been involved in a multi-million page document production? It’s a whole lot easier when it’s all in one place and you don’t have to start pulling hard drives.)
Ive explained how to work with Outlook as configured to manage server file space and archive to local pst.
Ive identified for you the approved secure system for managing large file transfers.
Your question has in fact been answered, correctly, and within both security and records retention policy requirements.
I dont know at this point what additional information you seek. You not only an answer, you have the right answer.
Policy should be coming from E level legal, not some GS computer guy.
The IT department can end up having to do a discovery search on not just the mail server, but every local hard drive and file server on the network, and all of the backup tapes.
Enable cached mode
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179175.aspx
The need to keep email on local computers is because there is no way the sheer amount of data our office receives can in no way be stored upon an email server. Many people have .PST files that are larger than 15-20 GBs in size. And something else to consider, state law mandates that certain records (let's say for instance environmental) be kept at a local level, and not on an email server God knows where. How do we marry state and federal law in this case? I don't think people thought this process out thoroughly.
Management is trying to protect themselves when they have a big document production. You are trying to subvert the process.
Sounds to me like you're on the side of big business / government? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Either that or you're using a bit of sarcasm in your reply.
I'm not trying to subvert the process, I'm trying to maintain what has been practiced for years. I'm arguing for local management of email traffic and files and not letting someone decide for me what's important and what is not. If they want to search through my email records, let them. I have nothing to hide.
That's one of the most basic rights here in the USA is it not, self determination, self rule?
If memory serves, it’s possible that a group or domain policy is blocking the use of .pst files.
And you know what, that's fine. I'm all for it. If they want to do a search of what's in my .PST files, let them, I got nothing to hide, and neither does anyone else I work with. It's just easier to maintain what was the status quo and have our records at our disposal for easier and faster access.
You know, all this goes back to one thing, control. More and more control is being taken away from the local user and being given to others.
For instance, AutoCAD software was once purchased, installed and updated by the local user. Now, the software is provided to the user by the major command. While it can save ooddles of money, that same software can only be licensed by connecting to a license server. What happens when someone decides they don't want people using the software, or if a network break happens and no one can license it, and therefore can't use it? It's happened, and whole shops have closed down because they had no access to something that was once controlled at the local level.
You see where I'm going with this? More and more our ability to control our environment is being taken away. People higher up the food chain are taking that control. Whether it be emails (and no, I'm talking the same illegal email mess that Hitlerly is embroiled in), or water usage out west (yay, fish are being saved while crops are destroyed, or any number of other rights.
Geez, this conversation is getting out of hand huh?
You'd change your mind if you were ever the one who had to do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.