Solved

Exchange 2003 ActiveSync errors

Posted on 2010-09-22
40
1,636 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-10
We have 2 Exchange servers.  We have a Back end/Front end setup.  The front end server is configured for Forms Based Authentication and SSL.  OWA works perfectly.  I am trying to get a few mobile devices to sync with our exchange server using OMA.  I am using, "testexchangeconnectivity.com" and ActiveSync Tester to trouble shoot my problem.  When using "testexchangeconnectivity.com" I perform the Exchange ActiveSync test.  I manually specify the server, enter username and password.  I check "Ignore Trust for SSL" and test.  The first time I test with any user I get this result:

**********************************************************************************************************************
ExRCA is testing Exchange ActiveSync.
The Exchange ActiveSync test failed.
 
Test Steps
        
Attempting to resolve the host name webmail.xxx.com in DNS.
       Host successfully resolved
        
Additional Details
       IP(s) returned: x.x.x.x

 
Testing TCP Port 443 on host webmail.xxx.com to ensure it is listening and open.
       The port was opened successfully.
 
ExRCA is testing the SSL certificate to make sure it's valid.
       The certificate passed all validation requirements.
        
Test Steps
        
The certificate name is being validated.
       Successfully validated the certificate name
        
Additional Details
       Found hostname webmail.xxx.com in Certificate Subject Common name

 
The certificate date is being confirmed to ensure the certificate is valid.
       Date validation passed. The certificate hasn't expired.
        
Additional Details
       Certificate is valid: NotBefore = 11/30/2009 10:44:42 AM, NotAfter = 11/30/2010 11:06:52 PM"



 
The IIS configuration is being checked for client certificate authentication.
       Client certificate authentication wasn't detected.
        
Additional Details
       Accept/Require Client Certificates not configured.

 
Testing Http Authentication Methods for URL https://webmail.xxx.com/Microsoft-Server-Activesync/
       The HTTP authentication methods are correct.
        
Additional Details
       Found all expected authentication methods and no disallowed methods. Methods Found: Basic

 
An ActiveSync session is being attempted with the server.
       Errors were encountered while testing the ActiveSync session
        
Test Steps
        
ExRCA is attempting to send the OPTIONS command to the server.
       OPTIONS response was successfully received and is valid
        
Additional Details
       Headers received: Pragma: no-cache
Public: OPTIONS, POST
Allow: OPTIONS, POST
MS-Server-ActiveSync: 6.5.7638.1
MS-ASProtocolVersions: 1.0,2.0,2.1,2.5
MS-ASProtocolCommands: Sync,SendMail,SmartForward,SmartReply,GetAttachment,GetHierarchy,CreateCollection,DeleteCollection,MoveCollection,FolderSync,FolderCreate,FolderDelete,FolderUpdate,MoveItems,GetItemEstimate,MeetingResponse,ResolveRecipients,ValidateCert,Provision,Search,Notify,Ping
Content-Length: 0
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:33:14 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

 
ExRCA is attempting the FolderSync command on the Exchange ActiveSync session.
       The FolderSync command completed successfully.
        
Additional Details
       Number of Folders: 10

 
ExRCA is attempting the initial sync to the Inbox folder. This initial sync won't return any data.
       An error occurred while the Sync command was being tested.
        
Additional Details
       An HTTP 500 response was returned from Unknown
**********************************************************************************************************************


I only get that result the first time, after that, when I test again with any user that has been tested before, I get this result:


**********************************************************************************************************************
ExRCA is testing Exchange ActiveSync.
The Exchange ActiveSync test failed.
 
Test Steps
        
Attempting to resolve the host name webmail.xxx.com in DNS.
       Host successfully resolved
        
Additional Details
       IP(s) returned: x.x.x.x

 
Testing TCP Port 443 on host webmail.xxx.com to ensure it is listening and open.
       The port was opened successfully.
 
ExRCA is testing the SSL certificate to make sure it's valid.
       The certificate passed all validation requirements.
        
Test Steps
        
The certificate name is being validated.
       Successfully validated the certificate name
        
Additional Details
       Found hostname webmail.xxx.com in Certificate Subject Common name

 
The certificate date is being confirmed to ensure the certificate is valid.
       Date validation passed. The certificate hasn't expired.
        
Additional Details
       Certificate is valid: NotBefore = 11/30/2009 10:44:42 AM, NotAfter = 11/30/2010 11:06:52 PM"



 
The IIS configuration is being checked for client certificate authentication.
       Client certificate authentication wasn't detected.
        
Additional Details
       Accept/Require Client Certificates not configured.

 
Testing Http Authentication Methods for URL https://webmail.xxx.com/Microsoft-Server-Activesync/
       The HTTP authentication methods are correct.
        
Additional Details
       Found all expected authentication methods and no disallowed methods. Methods Found: Basic

 
An ActiveSync session is being attempted with the server.
       Errors were encountered while testing the ActiveSync session
        
Test Steps
        
ExRCA is attempting to send the OPTIONS command to the server.
       OPTIONS response was successfully received and is valid
        
Additional Details
       Headers received: Pragma: no-cache
Public: OPTIONS, POST
Allow: OPTIONS, POST
MS-Server-ActiveSync: 6.5.7638.1
MS-ASProtocolVersions: 1.0,2.0,2.1,2.5
MS-ASProtocolCommands: Sync,SendMail,SmartForward,SmartReply,GetAttachment,GetHierarchy,CreateCollection,DeleteCollection,MoveCollection,FolderSync,FolderCreate,FolderDelete,FolderUpdate,MoveItems,GetItemEstimate,MeetingResponse,ResolveRecipients,ValidateCert,Provision,Search,Notify,Ping
Content-Length: 0
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:33:45 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

 
ExRCA is attempting the FolderSync command on the Exchange ActiveSync session.
       The test of the FolderSync command failed.
         Tell me more about this issue and how to resolve it

        
Additional Details
       Exchange ActiveSync returned an HTTP 500 response.
**********************************************************************************************************************

A similar thing happens with the ActiveSync tester application.  I select LAN, enter the Exchange FE private ip address, username, password and domain.  The first time I run this test for any user I get this result:

**********************************************************************************************************************
Communications:
      Doing DNS lookup on x.x.x.x ........ OK (xxx.domain.com)
      Testing TCP to x.x.x.x port 443 .... OK
SSL Certificate:
      Receiving ................................ OK
      Ensuring not Self-Signed ................. OK
      Verifying certificate .................... FAIL
ActiveSync:
      Checking for application ................. OK
      Checking version ......................... OK (6.5.7638.1)
      Checking protocols ....................... OK (1.0,2.0,2.1,2.5)
User Permissions:
      Checking "domain/user" .................. OK

Result:
      ActiveSync IS available but the certificate name is incorrect.
**********************************************************************************************************************


I only get that result the first time, after that, when I test again with any user that has been tested before, I get this result:


**********************************************************************************************************************
Communications:
      Doing DNS lookup on x.x.x.x ........ OK (xxx.domain.com)
      Testing TCP to x.x.x.x port 443 .... OK
SSL Certificate:
      Receiving ................................ OK
      Ensuring not Self-Signed ................. OK
      Verifying certificate .................... FAIL
ActiveSync:
      Checking for application ................. OK
      Checking version ......................... OK (6.5.7638.1)
      Checking protocols ....................... OK (1.0,2.0,2.1,2.5)
User Permissions:
      Checking "domain/user" .................. FAIL

Result:
      ActiveSync detected, but not correctly configured. [HTTP 500: Forms-based auth enabled?]
**********************************************************************************************************************

I've gone through the recommendations that ActiveSync Tester provides and they made no difference so I changed all the settings back to their original state.  I am not sure what to try next.  I found a few articles that talk about deleting the Exchange Virtual Directories for the IIS Metabase but I am not sure I'm ready to take that step.  Thanks in advance,
0
Comment
Question by:RHNOC
  • 15
  • 12
  • 9
  • +2
40 Comments
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:FDiskWizard
Comment Utility
Is the certificate a stand alone cert for that site only? i.e. not a wildcard?
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
The cert is for that server.  I don't believe this is cert related.  Even if I disable FBA and SSL, it still doesn't work.
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
I think the reason the cert error shows up using the ActiveSync Tester is because I am using the private IP to connect, not the public URL.
0
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:FDiskWizard
Comment Utility
And you're using ISA as the firewall in front of it? Do FW logs show anything being blocked?
I have Exch2003 w/ISA so I could compare some settings if needed.

Oh, check this...
http://www.isaserver.org/tutorials/Publish-Microsoft-Exchange-Active-Sync-EAS-ISA-Server-2006-Part2.html
Jump down to CAUSE...
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
We are not using ISA as the firewall.  We have a hardware firewall and 443 is open to the Exchange FE.  I do not believe this to be firewall related as the ActiveSync Tester is being used on the LAN side and I am getting the same result.
0
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:FDiskWizard
Comment Utility
CRUD! I pasted the wrong link!
Check this one out.... Jump down to "CAUSE" Section.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/817379/en-us
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
Monitoring in case I can be of any assistance beyond my article.
Alan
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
Alan - I was waiting for you to show up... I was quite surprised that you hadn't pasted your article into this question already ;-)
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
I would have popped along earlier if the notification I received wasn't delayed by about 2 hours and I wasn't building servers ; )
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
Your article rocks.  My concern is that we are a 24/7 environment.  Part of that procedure requires me to stop and start the exchange services.  That would require a scheduled downtime and that isn't an easy task to pull off.  So what I was hoping to do was provide as much information as possible to where someone much smarter than me could say with some certainty that my problem is related to corruption.  I don't expect someone to say 100% that is or isn't but I also don't want to create any other issues or unnecessary downtime.  I hope that makes sense.  The one other thing I didn't try is this:

***********************************************************************************************************************************
Exchange 2003 (Not part of Small Business Server):

Exchange Virtual Directory
•      Authentication = Integrated & Basic
•      Default Domain = NetBIOS domain name - e.g., yourcompany (no more than 15 characters)
•      Realm = yourcompany.com
•      IP Address Restrictions = Granted Access
•      Secure Communications = Require SSL NOT ticked (very important)

Microsoft-Server-Activesync Virtual Directory
•      Authentication = Basic
•      Default Domain = NETBIOS domain name - e.g., yourcompany (no more than 15 characters)
•      Realm = NETBIOS name
•      IP Address Restrictions = Granted Access
•      Secure Communications = Require SSL and Require 128-Bit Encryption IS ticked
***********************************************************************************************************************************

The two reasons I haven't are:
1) I didn't know if those settings should be made on the FE or BE server.  I would assume the FE but wasn't sure.
2) I checked an working environment that only has one server but is running 2003 sp2, OWA, OMA and configured practically the same and it didn't have those setting either.

One final note, I checked the application log on the FE server and ever since I enabled OMA and began testing, there has been an error happening every time someone tries to access ActiveSync from a mobile device.

**********************************************************************************************************************************
Event Type:      Error
Event Source:      Server ActiveSync
Event Category:      None
Event ID:      3005
Date:            9/22/2010
Time:            2:49:25 PM
User:            RHCASINO\user
Computer:      exchFE
Description:
Unexpected Exchange mailbox Server error: Server: [exchFE.domain.COM] User: [user@domain.com] HTTP status code: [500]. Verify that the Exchange mailbox Server is working correctly.
**********************************************************************************************************************************

Thanks again for all the help and advice guys!  
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
My article is aimed at the Single Server environment, but in our case I would assume the FE would be the target for IIS settings checks / changes.
The 3005 Error in the App logs is usually corrected by changing the Timeout Value in the Default Website Properties in IIS to something like 480.
The IIS settings chanes you may need to make won't involve restarting the information store, but the fixes for the HTTP 500 errors will unfortunately.  You will need to stop the Exchange System Attendant, which will take the Information Store down with it, so if you want to fix this - I am afraid down-time is the only option.  It is only minimal - no more than a couple of minutes at most - depending on your server, although for some - even that is too much.  What do you do in the event of installing updates?
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
I figured the same about making those changes on the FE.  I can give those a shot as they are easily reversible.  

As for the 3005 error, when you say Timeout Value, is that the Connections timeout on the Website tab of the Default Website Properties?  Currently it is set to 120 seconds.  If that is what you were referring to, I will adjust to 480 and restart IIS.

As for the 500 errors, I will have to schedule a downtime to test that fix.  I was hoping there might be some other things to try but all the places I look lead me to your article!  Thanks everyone,
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
Yes - change the timeout value from 120 to 480 and restart IIS (iisreset).
Sorry about the down-time - no other way around it with an HTTP 500 error (that I am aware of).
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
Quite often the 3005 App Log Errors don't prevent anything from happening sync-wise - they are just an irritation in the logs - nothing more.
0
 
LVL 26

Expert Comment

by:e_aravind
Comment Utility
Along with your tesing/troubleshooting, if you got some time want to configure the
emulator and connect directly to the FE, BE...for any other news/updates
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
e_aravind - I don't understand your statement, could you elaborate please?
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
Which server should I be performing "method 2" on?  The FE or BE server or both?
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
I would carry out Method 2 of KB883380 on the FE server - this is the one that controls the connection to the BE server and the BE server only holds the databases (as far as I am aware).
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
I can take my FE server offline at anytime so I will test there first.
0
Find Ransomware Secrets With All-Source Analysis

Ransomware has become a major concern for organizations; its prevalence has grown due to past successes achieved by threat actors. While each ransomware variant is different, we’ve seen some common tactics and trends used among the authors of the malware.

 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
Excellent - will be waiting to see the results.
Alan
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
Alan's comment #33749244 is correct the FE does all the work(OWA,POP, EAS) and then just collects info/data from the BE (mailboxes, PF)

Errr, won't your OWA be down the minute you take the FE offline?

make sure you don't have SSL enabled on the BE directories as the FE communicates with the BE over non SSL channels e.g.   Internet HTTPs(443)-->FE --> HTTP (80) -->BE
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
Make sure your BE has no FBA and that the Exchange VD auth on the BE is Integrated & Basic
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
I will be testing this tomorrow morning.  I will report back with the results.  
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
Ok I did this on the FE server and I am still getting the same result.  I noticed that at the end of your article you mentioned the 9667 event ID.  All of this started as I was trying to get a droid phone to sync with exchange.  The first step I took was enabling OMA in ESM.  Since I enabled that, my BE server has been logging this event.  I opened another question when I noticed this because I wasn't sure if they were related and I came across two different solutions and was unsure which one to use.  

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Software/Server_Software/Email_Servers/Exchange/Q_26495953.html

The first solution is the one that you recommend:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/820379/en-us
The second solution I came across was:  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;972077

The second option includes a hotfix.  As you can read from the other post I linked, I have concerns about each solution and was hoping to get a bit more insight into both before proceeding.  Thanks again in advance,
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
Event Type:      Error
Event Source:      MSExchangeIS
Event Category:      General
Event ID:      9667
Date:            9/27/2010
Time:            12:16:45 PM
User:            N/A
Computer:      Server
Description:
Failed to create a new named property for database "First Storage Group\Mailbox Store (ServerName)" because the number of named properties reached the quota limit (8192).
 User attempting to create the named property: "SYSTEM"
 Named property GUID: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000
 Named property name/id: "AirSyncCustom:wipeinitiated"

For more information, click http://www.microsoft.com/contentredirect.asp.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
0
 
LVL 76

Accepted Solution

by:
Alan Hardisty earned 250 total points
Comment Utility
I have not personally had to try either option, but this previous EE question seems to suggest that the KB820379 article works happily on Exchange 2003 for 9667 errors.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Software/Server_Software/Email_Servers/Exchange/Q_23163596.html
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
This is the most recent article I can find on the 9667 error.  MS released a hotfix in March of this year and this article below was written in July of this year.

http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2010/07/29/455687.aspx

Based on this article it seems that my exchange server has reached the limit of Non-Authenticated Users.  Now I have also found this article:

http://msexchangeguru.com/2009/09/04/event-id-9667/

Which describes how to increase the Non-Authenticated Users Quota.  The thing that has me very curious is the part about using MFCMAPI.  Is it possible to just delete Named Properties?  Does anyone have any experience using this application?  I know many users have used the KB820379 solution, I am just doing my do diligence to fully understanding the issue and solutions.  Thanks for all your assistance so far Alan and Meganuk3.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
I'd recommend increasing the quota to the 16384 value and this should give you several years of peace, by which time you should be on Exchange 2010 or later which no longer have this issue with named properties.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
I have used MFCMAPI loads of times, but mainly to delete corrupt rules or unhide hidden folders, never to delete named properties.
0
 
LVL 76

Expert Comment

by:Alan Hardisty
Comment Utility
I would personally be inclined to put in a call to Microsoft PSS before you do something you regret.
I have no experience on the Named Properties.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
Search on EE and you will see lots of people have called MS and have been told to increase the quota. Spend the money on the call if you want.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
It might be worthwhile installing the hotfix to stop promotion of named properties from anonymous e-mail, embedded messages and jounalling as per:
http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/04/06/451003.aspx

The hotfix should cut down on the amount of named properties created.

And then increase the quota, maybe even slightly to get rid of the 9667 event and see how quick you are consuming it...
0
 
LVL 31

Assisted Solution

by:MegaNuk3
MegaNuk3 earned 250 total points
Comment Utility
Have a look at this interesting article which states to install the hotfix first and then if you are still getting the event, increase the quota:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2383603/en-us
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
WOW guys, looks like you were up late like me.  I worked from home on this for about 2-3 hours.  Mainly just going over the articles again to get a better understanding of the problem and possible solutions.  

I decided again using MFCMAPI to delete some of the named properties.  I just didn't feel comfortable doing that.  I also decided against installing the hotfix mentioned in MS KB972077.  I wasn't sure if by making this change it would prevent all the creation of all named properties or just certain ones.  First thing I did was modify the registry to allow perfmon to monitor the amount of rows in the named properties table.  This is the article I used for that:

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=254606

After making that change I was able to view the amount of rows in the named properties table.  The value was 8191.  This was around 10pm PST.  Then I decided to follow this article:

http://msexchangeguru.com/2009/09/04/event-id-9667

I only modified the existing registry value opposed to creating new ones listed in this article:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/820379/en-us

I increased the value by 50% from 8192 to 12288.  Then I dismounted the store and remounted it.  I caught some heat for doing this unscheduled but it was late at night so not too many users noticed.  After that I tested the FE server using:

https://www.testexchangeconnectivity.com

The test passed successfully.  I then checked the application log on the BE server and the 9667 errors had stopped.  I checked the perfmon counter and noticed the value had increased from 8191 to 8201.  I figure when I enabled OMA to allow Droid devices to sync with Exchange, OMA had to add some named properties and was unable to because we had hit the soft limit.  After increasing it, OMA was able to create the required named properties.  

One last thing I am still considering is the hotfix listed in both KB2383603 and KB972077.  I want to apply this but I want to make sure it doesn't disable the creation of all named properties.  If it did, would that cause problems with current/future applications/services that create named properties like BES or Barracuda?  MegaNuk3 mentioned it applied to anonymous email, embedded messages and jounalling.  Are there any foreseen issues with stopping the promotion of named properties?

I hope to migrating to 2007 within a few months so hopefully it is irrelevant but it would still be good to know.  I wish we could just go to 2010 but we don't have the CAL's for 2010 at this time.  

I can't say thank you enough to both of you for assisting with this.  I would like to award points to both of you for your help on this as you both provided the acceptable solutions.  I hope that is ok with both of you.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
Points split is Fine with me.
0
 

Author Closing Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
Thanks for all your expertise guys!
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
I don't think there are any issues with what MS is doing to stop the promotion of named properties:
as per http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/04/06/451003.aspx


Changes Coming
So this is changing. If you like it, good, it's changing. If you don't like it, sorry, it's changing. If it enrages you, seek counseling, and it's still changing. We are putting the clamp down on x-header promotion and putting it hard. When we say that what it actually means is that we are changing the way that new x-headers are promoted. X-headers in E12 are database wide, meaning that if user A maps a named property on a database, user B on that database will get the same ID for the same name and guid combination. If a named property for a give X-header already has been promoted on a database, i.e. we've already created a mapping from x-williamrobert to 0x803f, we will continue to preserve the data for x-williamrobert, and we'll do it in the property with the id 0x803f. If a message comes in with x-billybob, and that header has never been promoted on the database before, the new rules take effect. The new rules control who gets to consume named properties to store x-header values. When the new promotion rules go into effect, many scenarios that once created new named properties to preserve X-header data will not:

Anonymous submissions: Sorry, anonymous mail sender from the internet. I do not know you and you do not get to consume precious resources on my server. If I've already saved off a named property for x-somerandomheader then I don't mind preserving the data, but if not, the value of x-somerandomheader will not be saved as a property on the message.

Embedded messages: This feature was created as an interop feature for MAPI applications to be able to set envelope or top level properties. Embedded messages with your six hundred voice over ip x-headers, no new named properties for you.

Journal Messages: This one will likely prove controversial but journal messages represent the biggest concentration of x-header consumption that is possible. Consider if you have 100 databases in your organization (really 101). Each MDB is exposed to 100 new x-headers from the internet per week. The journal mdb will be subject to 100x100 new x-headers a month. It will go through them faster than my son does a bag of microwave popcorn. Journal messages will not promote new x-header mappings. Journal content - that still gets journaled. Journal reports, yep, still saved. Your messages? Still in the journal mailbox. X-headers being mapped to named properties where they did not exist before: No.
0
 
LVL 31

Expert Comment

by:MegaNuk3
Comment Utility
More info on the changes in E2k7 SP1 RU8 or SP2 and Exchange 2010:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb851492(EXCHG.80).aspx

It basically says the same as above, but in e2k10 the named properties are now mailbox level not database level, so I suppose that means you can have 32k named properties per mailbox in Exchange 2010.
0
 

Author Comment

by:RHNOC
Comment Utility
WOW, thanks for the break down!  Great info.  
0

Featured Post

How does your email signature look on mobiles?

Do your employees use mobile devices to reply to emails? With mobile becoming increasingly important to the business world, it is in your best interest to make sure that your email signature looks great across all types of devices.

Join & Write a Comment

Easy CSR creation in Exchange 2007,2010 and 2013
Learn to move / copy / export exchange contacts to iPhone without using any software. Also see the issues in configuration of exchange with iPhone to migrate contacts.
To show how to generate a certificate request in Exchange 2013. We show this process by using the Exchange Admin Center. Log into Exchange Admin Center.:  First we need to log into the Exchange Admin Center. Navigate to the Servers >> Certificates…
The basic steps you have just learned will be implemented in this video. The basic steps are shown to configure an Exchange DAG in a live working Exchange Server Environment and manage the same (Exchange Server 2010 Software is used in a Windows Ser…

762 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

8 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now