Forum Discussion
Solved
Shared mailbox does not update itself
Hello everyone, So we have like 10 shared mailbox's and none of them are syncing itself. If I move some mails from inbox to another folder in the shared mailbox, I'd have to go to it and click th...
We ended up with creating a seperate mailbox, and stop using shared mailbox.
I would suggest you to do the same.
Unfortunately Outlook has not been optimized enough to do this probably.
Thanks jcgonzalezmartin, much appreciated :)
Pieter Rossouw, First of all, I do not work for Microsoft or represent them in any way, MVPs are *independent*. Thus, my opinions and recommendations are my own, nobody is forcing you to follow them and you are free to disagree or challenge them.
That said, Microsoft's guidance for O365 has always been to use cached mode, and keep the profile size down by limiting the amount of data synced. Having 10 mailboxes in the same profile kinda goes against this guidance, and with this many mailboxes, chances are that you do not need to access them all at the same time. Thus configuring separate profiles or using OWA is perfectly viable option, which will save you some trouble in the long run.
Have you actually tried working in Outlook with 10 mailboxes configured in Online mode, when connected to Exchange Online? I'm sure your experience was stellar.
Sorry guys, when I said users hate OWA, I didn't mean to spark this.
I will just say a couple points and hopefully a moderator can delete the mean comments in between.
OWA has the luxury of multiple simultaneous tabs, and this in my opinion does Trump Outlook for dealing with multiple mailboxes. Users need to open their minds more often to realize these things (but they won't, willingly, a lot of the time).
At the same time, Outlook is programmed to do all this enumeration all the time of items and folders. This is where all its limitations are derived from (eg max 10000 items / 500 folders etc.). I feel Microsoft should be redesigning this aspect of Outlook so that it can function just as good as OWA. Heck, they could make Outlook a frontend for OWA. I'm sure there's a lot to it, but I've always wondered why is Outlook so finicky? One answer is that the issues are a part of the need to be able to work offline. And fair enough. BUT, maybe it's time Online Mode (non-cached) gets an overhaul so that it is just an OWA frontend.
I hope I'm making sense. Just trying to say, if OWA can work so well ( not sarcasm, I agree it does), Outlook should be able to keep up.
VasilMichev I didn't mean my last comment to be hateful. Please don't associate my comment with the mean one that came after. I have lots of respect for you. Plus, even Microsoft Support are recommending OWA or to reduce the size/item count of mailboxes and the total number of mailboxes opened in Outlook. It's more during sales and initial migration that things are sugar-coated, leading to the eventual surprise and unhappy users.
