Charlie
Thu Nov 03 18:40:07 CST 2005
You're not alone. But in my case it's annoying, but not debilitating.
Does your SBS server have SP1 installed, BTW?
--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
John _ X wrote:
> I have actually tried this but no solution was found. I am hard wired. i
> also reloaded the system thinking it was an anomoly with the install.
> then i tried leaving it overnite but still nothing. i have tried caching
> and not (offline/online) and still i get the problem. once, i had one
> folder partially synced, but only one out of many. I would like to use
> Outlook/XP64 and cannot find anyother reference on the net to this
> specific problem. I doubt that i am alone.
> any other sbs'rs using xp64 yet?
>
> John
>
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:
>
>> Sorry if my post sounded that way, but sometimes people post questions in
>> the wrong product group. I was just trying to help you get the best
>> answer possible by directing your question to a group that relates to
>> the two products you mentioned, "Small Business Server 2003" and "Office
>> Outlook 2003", no where in your post was x64 or 64 bit mentioned. Again,
>> sorry.
>>
>> It seems like a Sychronization issue with Exchange, I don't know what
>> could be the cause of that. Are you sure that Outlook is not set to work
>> off line? It could also be a random error, you just have to leave it and
>> try again later.
>>
>> Charlie Russel answered a similar issue relating to synchronization,
>> hths: Exchange synchronization can be a problem, especially with a
>> wireless connection. My experience is that the following will usually
>> work:
>>
>> 1.) Reboot.
>> 2.) Log in. WAIT till everything is up and running, and then wait a
>> minute longer.
>> 3.) Start outlook.
>> 4.) Send yourself a message.
>>
>> Usually that is enough and after the first or second error message, it
>> will start working. If not, be patient. Do NOT close outlook and restart
>> it unless the problem hasn't corrected after 5 minutes.
>>
>> From reading the event logs on my server, I can tell that it's an
>> authentication issue, apparently a slightly "off" LDAP message. Beyond
>> that, I don't know what the source is. It's annoying, but I've learned
>> to live with it. And if I'm on the road, I just use Outlook Web Access
>> -- it's easier than trying to get a clean VPN connection that works well
>> enough for outlook.
>> --
>> Charlie.
>>
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>
>> --
>> Andre
>> Extended64 |
http://www.extended64.com
>> Blog |
http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>>
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> "John _ X" <JohnX@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:00C6F573-21AE-4711-9D02-1D3C8D23F10B@microsoft.com...
>>> this only happens with XP pro 64
>>> Try asnwering the question instead of jumping down my throat regarding
>>> where i post the question. Had i wanted to i would have posted it to the
>>> appropriate newgroup. Newgroups aren't new anymore, you don't need to
>>> police
>>> them.
>>>
>>> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does this question relate in anyway to Windows XP Professional x64? Try
>>>> these groups for questions relating to the appropriate products:
>>>> microsoft.public.exchange.clients
>>>> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs
>>>> microsoft.public.outlook
>>>> --
>>>> Andre
>>>> Extended64 |
http://www.extended64.com
>>>> Blog |
http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>>>>
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>>>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy
>>>>
http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>>>>
>>>> "John _ X" <John _ X@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:92B8953A-A327-496C-834D-BE431F9A0E24@microsoft.com...
>>>>> i have tried to connect outlook to the exchange server in the SBS
>>>>> enviroment
>>>>> and it will not update all of the folders, nor let me have any new
>>>>> mail as
>>>>> it
>>>>> arrives. is this communication issue a common problem and does anyone
>>>>> know
>>>>> a
>>>>> workaround if it is? (i have tried switching between cached and not
>>>>> cached
>>>>> and it appears to have no difference in the connection.)