User Profile
53Clubs
Brass Contributor
Joined 6 years ago
User Widgets
Recent Discussions
Re: Exchange Message Trace Results - ##Receive, Pending, Deliver
I was never able to get any satisfaction on the issue. It appears that the term "Pending" is like putting a piece of paper onto a pile on the desk of 'that guy who's desk is always piled high with papers he's never really going to do anything with'. You can't do anything with a message that's been "Pending" for more than 7 days, and its not being bounced back, and its not being delivered, and nobody is being informed of its existance... so to anybody but the sender (who believe's he/she has accomplished the task) it was never sent and never existed.Re: Exchange Message Trace Results - ##Receive, Pending, Deliver
Kidd_Ip I guess I am still confused by what "Not supported" is intended to mean. In my case, the messages I searched for, and found, which indicate "email address removed for privacy reasons##Receive, Pending, Deliver" (all statuses, not just each individually) was sent into my organization from an outside organization 3 weeks ago (2/24/23). So - if "Pending" is 'not supported' after 7 days - then what is is telling me? - and more importantly, what can I do about it? I'm presuming that the "Receive" part is telling me that it was an inbound message - but the fact that it follows with both "Pending" and "Deliver" is certainly confusing - unless the "Deliver" part is just telling me that the message is intended to be delivered (?... as opposed to?). Certainly it is not indicating both that it is Pending AND that it was delivered, right? ...and again - if "Pending" is "not supported after 7 days", why is it telling me its "Pending" 3 weeks after the message was sent. Most importantly, given this clearly confusing set of mutually exclusive bits of information, What am I supposed to tell my user about the email, and what can be done to retrieve or eliminate it? I mean, sure - having the listed definitions of "Pending" and "Delivered" may 'seem' useful or clever, but really... is it either of those things?Why has Microsoft Never solved the Group Contacts Problem?
I've been using Microsoft Exchange since what can effectively be described as "The Dawn of Time". Specifically, since 1996 when we were using Exchange 4.0 and this nifty new tool called "ActiveSync". The transport was simple, the database was huge, clunky, fragile, error prone, and terribly difficult to repair - but it was the best thing available and had some great functionalities - including Public Folders - which allowed for 'company wide' sharing of information. It was clear that there was still some development needed, because one glaring gap was that ActiveSync could not deal with Public Folder data - and everyone in the industry recognized this as a flaw, but we also trusted the Microsoft would fix it in the next version or through a patch. The biggest problem with the inability to link ActiveSync with Public folders was that it prevented companies from effectively sharing a corporate contact list. Every person could go in at their desktops and find an address in their company's Shared Contacts in the Public Folders - which was valuable if you are sitting at your desk, but didn't help you anywhere else (for me, the frustration was on my "Palm Pilot" - but the 'PDA Boom' was just starting out and soon there would be thousands of devices). So, you copied the entire contents of the Company Contact List into your personal Contacts in Outlook, then you could sync - and you were perfectly synchronized... that minute. As soon as anything changed in the Public contacts, of course, you were out of date and would remain so until you emptied out your company contacts and copied everything over from the public folders again. Fast Forward 25 years... and the same problem exists in the same way today. Today, we send and receive mail from our mobile phones at a rate of billions of messages per day. We synchronize every kind of data under the sun. We browse the internet on our phone, while we are driving, merely by speaking at our phone without ever taking our hands off the steering wheel! Microsoft has online services to do EVERYTHING including processing and parsing data automatically from one database to another triggered by anyone anywhere making an entry in that database, or just on a scheduled basis. We can take tests, hold meetings FACE TO FACE whether on our computer or on our phone, or tablet, or, depending on your model, you can probably do it on your refrigerator or cloud controlled home thermostat. "Honey, what are you doing in the hallway?"... "Oh, nothing dear, just having a quick Teams chat with my poker buddies...". What can't we do using Microsoft Technology? - I mean... Its pretty amazing, isn't it? Oh,... I know what we can't do.... WE CAN'T SHARE A CONTACT LIST INSIDE OUR COMPANY AND KEEP EVERYONE UP TO DATE WITH CHANGES AND STILL ACCESS THE INFORMATION WHILE WE'RE NOT SITTING AT OUR DESKS! What is it about this basic problem that is so challenging to Microsoft that, even though at least one person every day over those 25 years has been asking for it, they are either unwilling or incapable of finding a solution?Re: Error when trying to access private messages
Allen My replies (the one you reference and the one immediately before it) were replies specifically to this message Fron James van den Berg’s reply to Ryan Steele on 6/10/2020: As for “when it started” – I really have no idea, nor much care now that I’ve solved it. As for turning Private messages off, though you’ve stated my “message indicates you [I] did not do that”, I certainly don’t recall saying such a thing, nor do I see it in my message – but maybe I said it… not sure. This said, I certainly don’t remember turning private messaging off, but its not out of the realm of things I might do. Whether I did or not doesn’t make any of the remainder of the message less true. Specifically, even if I had turned private messaging off manually: It is STILL ridiculously stupid People should STILL absolutely NOT be able to send you private messages. You STILL 100% should not have to look at a badge telling you how many you have. And finally, the link STILL directs you to an inaccurate and inane error message.
