On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 21:38 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> > I don't use Exchange so I don't really have anything useful to say,
> but
> > just as a general comment, "large" means different things to
> different
> > people so you might want to be more specific.
> >
>
> 1 - 2 GB during the time I w
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I don't use Exchange so I don't really have anything useful to say, but
> just as a general comment, "large" means different things to different
> people so you might want to be more specific.
>
1 - 2 GB during the time I was strugglin
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:10 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote:
> 2009/8/23 Brian J. Murrell :
> > I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for
> > the next major release (2.6.28)?
>
> I would not hold my breath -- it has been like this for the several
> years that I struggled
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 12:03 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for
> the next major release (2.6.28)?
>
> For reference, I filed bug 589245 in bugzilla back on July 21 and the
> only response was a recommendation to use the patch i
2009/8/23 Brian J. Murrell :
> I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for
> the next major release (2.6.28)?
I would not hold my breath -- it has been like this for the several
years that I struggled trying to use it. Access to an Exchange mailbox
that is large is eve
I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for
the next major release (2.6.28)?
For reference, I filed bug 589245 in bugzilla back on July 21 and the
only response was a recommendation to use the patch in bug 564388 which
I reported I am already using.
Even with that pat
