Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of mike2401
mike2401Flag for United States of America

asked on

Outlook 2016 w/ Exchange 2007 Searching ONLINE mode: reliable?

Outlook 2016 w/ Exchange 2007 Searching ONLINE mode: reliable?

On Exchange 2007, we created copy of all email from & to every user (by quarter).

I was asked to produce all email To & From a particular user.

Using Outlook 2016 in online mode (can't cache because that quarter's copy is 70 gigs), I sorted the entire "inbox" by From and see that there's 528 messages From the user.

However, I used Outlook 2016's search (online mode) for all mail from, to & cc that user) and THEN sorted the results by FROM and came up with only 454 messages.

In the past, when we were using Outlook 2007 we concluded that searching was not reliable.

I thought it might have been fixed in 2016.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Mike
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of David Johnson, CD
David Johnson, CD
Flag of Canada image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of mike2401

ASKER

Note: We are not using Office 365 microsoft hosted.

I think "litigation hold" is a feature of the online offering.

Mike
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Thanks Will.  Ultimately, we wanted to copy the desired messages to a PST so OWA wouldn't be  helpful.

It's a brand new profile.

This time I did it in outlook 2013; previously we did it in outlook 2007 and then concluded that searching wasn't robust.
Since we are running Exchange 2007, and have not invested in a fancy e-discovery or other solution, I told my boss with the tools we have, we can only produce a reliable set of email FROM particular people, not TO particular people; we're going with that.

We hope to be migrating to Office 365 next year so this shouldn't be an issue in the future.

Thanks,
Mike
Thanks for your comments.

_Mike