Home
%3CLINGO-SUB%20id%3D%22lingo-sub-609633%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3EAnd%20here%20are%20some%20Exchange%2012%20answers!%3C%2FLINGO-SUB%3E%3CLINGO-BODY%20id%3D%22lingo-body-609633%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CP%3E%3CFONT%20face%3D%22Verdana%22%20size%3D%222%22%3EA%20few%20weeks%20ago%2C%20%3CA%20href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.msdn.com%2Fexchange%2Farchive%2F2005%2F01%2F28%2F362514.aspx%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ewe%20asked%20you%3C%2FA%3E%20for%20your%20list%20of%20questions%20about%20E12%20and%20said%20we'd%20pick%20a%20few%20and%20post%20answers%20on%20the%20one%20year%20anniversary%20of%20this%20blog%2C%20February%209th.%20Well%20as%20you%20can%20see%2C%20I%20totally%20missed%20that%20date%20%3A)%3C%2Fimg%3E%20Very%20sorry%20about%20that%20and%20I'd%20be%20happy%20to%20list%20off%20my%20excuses%2C%20but%20let's%20get%20on%20to%20the%20good%20news%20instead%3A%20for%20the%20foreseeable%20future%2C%20we%20are%20going%20to%20have%20a%20monthly%20post%20about%20E12%2C%20the%20content%20will%20usually%20be%20based%20on%20the%20questions%20we%20get%20from%20you.%20So%20without%20further%20ado%2C%20here%20are%20answers%20to%20the%20first%20set%20of%20questions.%20Please%20add%20any%20additional%20questions%20as%20comments%20on%20the%20E12-focused%20posts%20and%20they'll%20be%20added%20to%20the%20list%20for%20consideration%20for%20answering%20the%20next%20time%20around.%20We%20won't%20be%20able%20to%20answer%20everything%2C%20depending%20on%20the%20state%20of%20the%20feature%20in%20question%2C%20as%20we%20only%20want%20to%20talk%20to%20you%20about%20features%20that%20are%20very%20baked.%20Without%20further%20ado%3A%3CBR%20%2F%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CSTRONG%3EQuestion%20%231%3A%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%20Lots%20of%20people%20asked%20about%20the%2032k%20rules%20limitation%3A%26nbsp%3B%20%22As%20someone%20else%20mentioned%20how%20about%20improvements%20to%20server%20side%20rules%20(32k%20limit)%22%2C%20%22Since%20I%20ask%20this%20every%20time%20I%20talk%20to%20Microsoft%20developers%20%3A)%2C%20any%20news%20on%20when%20will%20the%2032k%20server%20side%20rule%20limitation%20be%20resolved%22.%20%3CBR%20%2F%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CSTRONG%3EAnswer%20%231%3A%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%20I'm%20happy%20that%20I%20get%20to%20be%20the%20one%20to%20tell%20you%20that%20the%2032k%20rules%20limit%20is%20gone...%20It's%20now%2064k!%20Just%20kidding!!%20We%20are%20still%20determining%20what%20the%20default%20will%20be%20(there's%20a%20tradeoff%20in%20performance%20of%20course%2C%20the%20more%20processing%20you%20ask%20the%20server%20to%20do%20on%20inbound%20mail%2C%20so%20we%20want%20to%20choose%20a%20smart%20default)%2C%20but%20the%20administrator%20will%20be%20able%20to%20change%20the%20limit.%3CBR%20%2F%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CSTRONG%3EQuestion%20%232%3A%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%20I'd%20like%20to%20see%20a%20unified%20messaging%20function%20in%20E12%20(facsimile%2C%20voice%2C...).%3CBR%20%2F%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3E%3CSTRONG%3EAnswer%20%232%3A%3C%2FSTRONG%3E%20UM%20is%20absolutely%20an%20area%20we%20are%20investing%20in%2C%20as%20you%20can%20see%20from%20some%20of%20the%20articles%20about%20it%2C%20such%20as%20%3CA%20href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eweek.com%2Farticle2%2F0%2C1759%2C1752710%2C00.asp%22%20target%3D%22_blank%22%20rel%3D%22nofollow%20noopener%20noreferrer%20noopener%20noreferrer%22%3Ethis%20one%20from%20eWeek%3C%2FA%3E.%20If%20you%20call%20me%20at%20Microsoft%20today%20and%20leave%20me%20a%20voicemail%2C%20it%20gets%20routed%20to%20my%20inbox%20using%20only%20Microsoft%20technology.%3CBR%20%2F%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3EThat's%20it%20for%20right%20now%2C%20and%20look%20for%20a%20post%20next%20month%20with%20some%20more%20questions%20and%20answers%20about%20E12.%3CBR%20%2F%3E%26nbsp%3B%3CBR%20%2F%3E-%20KC%20Lemson%3C%2FFONT%3E%3C%2FP%3E%3C%2FLINGO-BODY%3E%3CLINGO-LABS%20id%3D%22lingo-labs-609633%22%20slang%3D%22en-US%22%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3ECommunity%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3EExchange%202007%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3CLINGO-LABEL%3Emicrosoft%3C%2FLINGO-LABEL%3E%3C%2FLINGO-LABS%3E

A few weeks ago, we asked you for your list of questions about E12 and said we'd pick a few and post answers on the one year anniversary of this blog, February 9th. Well as you can see, I totally missed that date :) Very sorry about that and I'd be happy to list off my excuses, but let's get on to the good news instead: for the foreseeable future, we are going to have a monthly post about E12, the content will usually be based on the questions we get from you. So without further ado, here are answers to the first set of questions. Please add any additional questions as comments on the E12-focused posts and they'll be added to the list for consideration for answering the next time around. We won't be able to answer everything, depending on the state of the feature in question, as we only want to talk to you about features that are very baked. Without further ado:
 
Question #1: Lots of people asked about the 32k rules limitation:  "As someone else mentioned how about improvements to server side rules (32k limit)", "Since I ask this every time I talk to Microsoft developers :), any news on when will the 32k server side rule limitation be resolved".
 
Answer #1: I'm happy that I get to be the one to tell you that the 32k rules limit is gone... It's now 64k! Just kidding!! We are still determining what the default will be (there's a tradeoff in performance of course, the more processing you ask the server to do on inbound mail, so we want to choose a smart default), but the administrator will be able to change the limit.
 
Question #2: I'd like to see a unified messaging function in E12 (facsimile, voice,...).
 
Answer #2: UM is absolutely an area we are investing in, as you can see from some of the articles about it, such as this one from eWeek. If you call me at Microsoft today and leave me a voicemail, it gets routed to my inbox using only Microsoft technology.
 
That's it for right now, and look for a post next month with some more questions and answers about E12.
 
- KC Lemson

13 Comments
Not applicable
Thanks for the answer! I work in an environment that has a VERY large POP3 population that is moving to MAPI (well...a good percentage of them are) and many of my customers are having rules limitation woes. What would make my customers (80% are engineersdevelopers) even happier if Sieve filtering was implemented..but I suppose I will save that one for the next developer who opens the ? door.

Best regards,
Steven
Not applicable
please support "In-Reply-To" header! or is there any workaround already?
Not applicable
Any chance E12 will include functionality (out of the box) for email disclaimers?
Not applicable
Exchange-faq.dk - Din portal til Microsoft Exchange Server information
Not applicable
Isn't the "In-Reply-To" header an Outlook thing?
Not applicable
Well, actually I don't know if it's an Outlook matter or not. But without Exchange, Outlook properly handles "In-Replay-To" header.
Not applicable
In-Reply-To: and References: are both internet standard going back to RFC 822 (published 1982) and probably before.
Not applicable
this is great, but why do you claim to have 12 answers, when there are only 2 posted???
Not applicable
Pieter - I think you've encountered a parsing error :) I never said 12 answers. I said answers about Exchange 12. Since we'll be doing this monthly, I'm splitting up the answers and will have more each month.
Not applicable
Wins ! Please, please get rid of Wins !

Also, it would be great to have virtual SMTP servers behave a bit a bit like Vhosts in Sendmail... so I can route people whose primary email address is @domain1.com have their message headers set as from @domain1.com, and people whose primary email address is set as from @domain2.com have their message headers rewritten as from @domain2.com.

That would make life alot easier for people hosting multiple domains on a single server (or cluster).
Not applicable
Given that Exchange 12 will be available as a 64bit product, I assume that in a fully 64-bit environment (hardware, OS and Exchange) the current issues with VM fragmentation will be a thing of the past given the larger 64bit address space.

If this is the case will we also see support for greater numbers of Storage Groups and/or mailbox stores? Also will Exchange make better use of physical RAM by increasing the maximum database cache size?
Not applicable
Something ISP's/ASP's/MSP's need is the ability to use AD GPO's for certain exchange type policies, especially limits. Imagine an MSP Exchange hosting company with 100,000 seats across 35,000 customers, and they offer tiered mailbox size limits based on what the customer is willing to pay. Since you can't expect to have a paticular customer on their own mailbox stores you'd want to set it at the user object level, but without GPO support you either have to do this manually or write a script that you have to run against an OU. Being able to create a GPO for certain exchange user settings and pointing it at an OU is something we've needed since exchange 2000. Will this be availble in E12? <br> <br>Oh, and double or triple the IS limits on Exchange standard, 16GB just doesn't cut it anymore.
Not applicable
Hi ... please add customisable NDR messages ;)