Exchange 2003 & Entourage Update - Absolutely No problems, full functioning

[Jeff Koviack]

Hello,

I am posting to let others know that it is possible for a full functioning
messaing solution (as detailed by Microsoft) using the Entourage Client in
an Exchange Environment.

I have a test lab consisting of the following:

Windows Server 2003 Active Directory Domain with an Exchange Server 2003

The lab consists of the following machines (w/ configurations)

(01) Windows Server 2003 : DNS, Active Directory (holding all 5 FSMO roles
and the Global Catalog), Office 2003 : 192.168.1.201 : domain =
coe.no-ip.com
(01) Windows Server 2003 : Exchange Server 2003, Office 2002 : 192.168.1.200
(01) Windows XP Prof : Office 2003 : DHCP client 192.168.1.x
(01) Macintosh OS X (10.2.6) : Mac Office X (10.1.4) : DHCP client
192.168.1.y

Last Month, prior to inclusion of Macintosh Client, I installed in order:

Fresh install of Windows Server 2003 (192.168.1.201)
installed DNS-fwd and reverse lookups for coe.no-ip.com
ran DCPROMO to promote to Domain Controller
ran both Forestprep & Domainprep in preperation of Exchange Server

Fresh install of Windows Server 2003 on Second machine (192.168.1.200)
joined coe.no-ip.com
installed ALL the necessary components (IIS, ASP.NET, SMTP, NNTP, etc.)
installed Exchange Server 2003

populated domain with 350 user accounts w/ email addresses

Fresh Install of Windows XP (DHCP Client)
Deployed Office 2003 via Group Policy to DC & Windows XP
Installed Office 2002 on Exchange Server (at the time, BETA 2 Refresh for
2003 was not available and was recommended not to be installed w/o it)

Full Functioning domain: Print, Save, Surf the web, and could send and
receive mail to any user account: %username%@coe.no-ip.com (example:
(e-mail address removed)-ip.com)

*I now have the Office BETA 2 Refresh on DC and Windows XP machine and
Office 2002 still on the Exchange server

Yesterday, I discovered that 10.1.4 was available. I read the official
release. I followed the following steps:

http://www.microsoft.com/mac/support.aspx?pid=exchange#update

Fresh Install OS X (10.2.6) w/ MAC Office X (10.1.2)
Downloaded (10.1.4)
Installed (10.1.4)

The Default install of Exchange Server 2003 disables IMAP, so I had to go
into the Services and choose to Automatically start this service.

Started the MAC
Opened Entourage (Cancelled the wizard because I wanted to manually set up)

Tools->Accounts->Exchange tab->New->Configure Account Manually

Account Settings Tab:

Account Name: Jeff Koviack
Account ID: jkoviack
Password: *******
Domain: COE
x Save password in my Mac OS keychain

Exchange Server: 192.168.1.200
Name: Jeff Koviack
E-mail address: (e-mail address removed)-ip.com

Mail Tab:

Sending Mail
SMTP Server: 192.168.1.200

Directory Tab:

LDAP server: 192.168.1.201

Advanced Tab:

Free/Busy Server: 192.168.1.200

<clicked> OK

Immediately a Jeff Koviack mailbox was created. It was populated with the
INBOX, Delted Items; Drafts; Sent Items: Junk Email; Outbox; Public Folder

All my email was in the Inbox.

TESTING: two user accounts: Jeff & Ric. Jeff logged onto MAC w/
entourage; Ric logged onto PC w/ Outlook

email:

Ric sends email to Jeff = Message received
Jeff replies to Ric = Ric receives message

Summary: mail can be sent back and forth seemlessly regardles of
platform/client

Calendaring:

Ric invites Jeff for a 4:00 meeting = Meeting request received by Jeff
Jeff accepts Ric's meeting request = confirmation received and meeting
populated in Ric's calendar
Jeff clicks calendar in Entourage = Meeting populated in Entourage
Jeff invites Ric for a 2:30 meeting = meeting populated in Entourage
Ric accepts Jeff's meeting request = confirmation received and meeting
populated in both calendars

Summary: calendaring can be conducted seemlessly regardless of
platform/client

Use of GAL (Global Address List):

Jeff sends mail to user John in domain
In the To: box type John and click Check names = 14 entries: John
Donaldson, John Kranzler, Cindy Johnson, etc. etc.
Jeff composes and sends mail to John Kranzler
Log in via OWA (outlook web access) using John Kranzler's credentials =
email arrived

Summary: GAL is accessbile regardless of platform/client

Access to Contacts.

on my "REAL" machine, exported my contacts into an excel file.
emailed excel file to (e-mail address removed)-ip.com
received excel file, saved to desktop of Windows XP machine
imported contacts from excel file using wizard.
swiveled chair to MAC and opened contacts = all contacts were displayed
Created a new contact in Entourage: JOE SMITH; (e-mail address removed)
swivled chair to PC and opened contacts = Joe Smith was now in contacts

Summary: Contacts can be populated and accessed regardless of
platform/client

This is as far as I was able to test this afternoon. Future tests will
include public folders limited functionality.

CONCLUSSION: I have a full functioning messaging environment using: Windows
Server 2003 domain, Exchange Server 2003 and Windows XP/MAC OS X clients
running Outlook/Entourage respectively.

/Jeff

===========================
Jeff Koviack
Coordinator of Computer Applications
MCP | MCSA | MCSE | MCT

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

Thanks for posting, Jeff. It makes for a good tutorial.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP Entourage

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Entourage you are using - 2001 or X.
It's often impossible to answer your questions otherwise.

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

That's nice for your Lab, but what about real world environments with
Exchange 2000 and Windows 2000? That's where a lot of the problems
are arising, not with the bleeding edge/beta 2003 products.

The only thing that Exchange 2003 is meant to offer different from Exchange
2000 is auto-configuring of the free/busy server, as I understand it.
Windows 2000 should be fine too: it doesn't affect Entourage on the Macs in
any way. Have you tried Jeff's sequence?

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP Entourage

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Entourage you are using - 2001 or X.
It's often impossible to answer your questions otherwise.

 

[Chris Langlois]

Without public folder viewing in a calendar, this is useless...you cannot
view future events, or setup dept calendaring/scheduling in the list
view. Without it, you will never release this to the enterprise, I
guarantee you that.

And wait until you have to tell your CEO that he/she has to leave their
system on, with the Entourage client running for rules to run, since
they are all client-side now. Sweet.

Full functionality, I think not.

 

[Jeff Koviack]

I have full functionality that is available and stated on the
www.microsoft.com/mac website.

As for public folder viewing in a calendar, i do believe OWA would
facilitate that specific need. Prior to this patch, our solution for our
"enterprise" was to use only OWA. This patch provides a little more
functionaility/flexibility. I don't think this is the end of the line for
the development of this applicatoin. No question abot it, Entourage is
clearly better today than what it was yesterday.

As for what I'm telling my "CEO", she is a PC user and has full
functionaility already. ;-)

As for client side/server side rules, in Exchange 2003 Outlook Web Access
you can create the server side rules, iincluding junk mail filters.--that is
sweet

Full Functionality is achieved for my 300+ MAC users, it's just going to
require a few extra steps (and "bleeding edge technology") until the
entourage application catches up.

 

[Chris Langlois]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as to what is considered full
functionality. According to MS it's one thing....real life, as I live it, is a
completely different Apple (pun intended!)

Cheers

 

[Jeff Koviack]

It's all good...

I'll find out exactly how functional it is in a few weeks when we go live.
I do agree it would be nice to have everything working all at once, but this
"something" is definitely better than what was available.

Exchange 2003 has gone RTM and should be available to purchase in early
September, perhaps if public folders and server side rules are that
important to the business it would be worth looking at Exchange 2003. I've
been running Exchange 2003 since BETA in January and I absolutely love the
functionality. They have the release code available for trial:
www.microsoft.com/exchange. They also have a 10-day trial of OWA availaable
if you don't want to download and install 2k3.

Granted, you don't just decide to throw 2k3 in production tomorrow. I have
been part of one migration from Exchange 2k -to- 2k3 and it went painless.
But like all things Microsoft, you'll have to consider your licensing.

For us, Exchange 2k3 is coming because the Dean wants it. Exchange has to be
available to 350 users (300+ MAC OS X & 50 ish PC users--oh by the way, I
have 20+ Pocket PC users that want OMA access). They have to all calendar
together. The entourage patch will allow for mail, calendar, contacts, and
GAL access. For us that is a big step in the right direction. I will
definitely be looking forward to full functionality of Public folders. As
for server side rules, you don't create that many rules and you don't do
them that often that logging onto OWA until a future update won't be that
bad .

Keep hammering 'em because the squeeky wheel gets the grease.

/Jeff


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree as to what is considered full
functionality. According to MS it's one thing....real life, as I live it,
is a
completely different Apple (pun intended!)

Cheers

 

[Corentin Cras-Méneur]

Hi Chris,

And wait until you have to tell your CEO that he/she has to leave their
system on, with the Entourage client running for rules to run, since
they are all client-side now.

For my personal understanding, could you tell me why you consider a
major burden to have the rules running client side ??? I'm not sure I
see the problem (but I probably don't use Exchange the same way you do).


Corentin

 

[William M. Smith]

Hi Chris,


For my personal understanding, could you tell me why you consider a
major burden to have the rules running client side ??? I'm not sure I
see the problem (but I probably don't use Exchange the same way you do).

Hi Corentin!

In a corporate environment or even a small environment, one computer may be
accessed by more than one person. Someone could easily turn off the machine,
quit your Exchange session or use Entourage to access his own mail. Your
rules wouldn't work.

Furthermore, Email is password protected in corporate environments not
necessarily to keep people from reading your messages, but to prove
identity.

Leaving an Entourage client up and running would allow anyone with a grudge
to use your email to pose as you and send a nasty-gram to your boss or CEO.

Administrators have the ability to set your passwords to one of their
choosing or make you reset your password. But they can never see it
themselves. This is for their protection.

Proxying allows you to grant access to someone else to read your mail, but
that person must first identify himself using his own password and then use
his own Exchange session to get access to the proxied account. A good rule
of thumb is to never allow anyone proxying you to send mail on your behalf.
Just let him read. He can respond from his own account. Again, this is for
your protection as well as the proxy's.

With all that said, setting rules server side so that messages can be
auto-replied to is a big feature in a corporate environment. No need to
worry about anyone using your identity.

Hope this helps! bill

 

[Corentin Cras-Méneur]

Hi Corentin!

Hi Bill,

In a corporate environment or even a small environment, one computer may be
accessed by more than one person. Someone could easily turn off the machine,
quit your Exchange session or use Entourage to access his own mail. Your
rules wouldn't work.

With have a somehow similar setup on our machines here and I don't quite
see the same issue. Everyone has it's own MacOSX account and when they
log into their session Entourage uses their own sets of rules.
Are people sharring the same MMacOS X accounts on your machines and
simply using different identities in Entourage ???

Furthermore, Email is password protected in corporate environments not
necessarily to keep people from reading your messages, but to prove
identity.

Yeah, that would be a missing feature here. You can use PGP signatures
though (right ??)

Leaving an Entourage client up and running would allow anyone with a grudge
to use your email to pose as you and send a nasty-gram to your boss or CEO.

I simply log out of my session and no one can access my e-mail. I guess
the problem is that I don't see why I should need to keep Entourage up
and running all the time.

Administrators have the ability to set your passwords to one of their
choosing or make you reset your password. But they can never see it
themselves. This is for their protection.

I see.

Proxying allows you to grant access to someone else to read your mail, but
that person must first identify himself using his own password and then use
his own Exchange session to get access to the proxied account. A good rule
of thumb is to never allow anyone proxying you to send mail on your behalf.
Just let him read. He can respond from his own account. Again, this is for
your protection as well as the proxy's.

Interesting option. We sure don't have that in the current version of
Entourage (or I failed to see it - badly).

With all that said, setting rules server side so that messages can be
auto-replied to is a big feature in a corporate environment. No need to
worry about anyone using your identity.

Yeah, I get this one. You can still do it by connecting to your account
through the webmail interface though (at least I can).

Hope this helps! bill

Thanks for the clarification Bill,


Corentin

 

[William M. Smith]

Hi Bill,

Hi back Corentin!

With have a somehow similar setup on our machines here and I don't quite
see the same issue. Everyone has it's own MacOSX account and when they
log into their session Entourage uses their own sets of rules.
Are people sharring the same MMacOS X accounts on your machines and
simply using different identities in Entourage ???

I'm still rather new to Entourage myself and we don't use it at work. We are
using Outlook for now.

We do not share email obviously, but we will hop on another user's
workstation when he is not using it to print a job or do something else
while our own machines are busy. I personally quit all apps I don't need to
give myself as much memory as possible (I work in a graphics environment).
Some folks will restart machines when they are experiencing problems or
shutdown machines at night.

Unless I'm missing something Entourage needs to be launched and logged in
for a user to run rules.

Yeah, that would be a missing feature here. You can use PGP signatures
though (right ??)

PGP is for securing messages you send. The password protection I'm referring
to is the password you need to access your email account in the first place.
Only the user of an email account should be able to access his email account
and send email as himself.

I simply log out of my session and no one can access my e-mail. I guess
the problem is that I don't see why I should need to keep Entourage up
and running all the time.

Again, unless I'm missing something Entourage must be running to run rules.
It's rather common in companies to use "vacation" rules that reply to
received messages informing the sender that the recipient is on vacation.

Sales folks will also forward email automatically to their sales assistants
while out of the office.

But while you're on vacation, you certainly don't want to have to leave your
email open and running to automatically respond. I'll be on your machine in
a heartbeat!

I see.


Interesting option. We sure don't have that in the current version of
Entourage (or I failed to see it - badly).

You didn't miss it. It's not there.

The lack of this feature more than any other is what makes this new update
for Entourage "not ready for prime time" enterprise use. The ability for an
Administrative Assistant to access his boss's email, schedule his boss's
appointments, etc., is necessary. Sensitive "for your eyes only" mail can
not be sent because the Assistant would be able to read it if he had his
boss's password. Proxying allows you to restrict views on private and
confidential messages.

Yeah, I get this one. You can still do it by connecting to your account
through the webmail interface though (at least I can).

Definitely. But can you believe our email admins won't enable OWA? Ugh.
Don't ask me why. That's a different battle... I believe most do, which is a
saving grace for Entourage users.

Thanks for the clarification Bill,

Thanks for listening to me rant. d

bill

 

[Corentin Cras-Méneur]

Hi back Corentin!

Hi Bill,

[...]

I'm still rather new to Entourage myself and we don't use it at work. We are
using Outlook for now.

We do not share email obviously, but we will hop on another user's
workstation when he is not using it to print a job or do something else
while our own machines are busy.

I see what you are talking about. Actually, in this regard I believe
Entourage behaved the way it is intended in the MacOS X guidelines.
Every user should have its own account and never use anybody else's
account. MacOS X 10.3 should make this even easier since it is supposed
to have a "fast user switching" feature.

I personally quit all apps I don't need to
give myself as much memory as possible (I work in a graphics environment).
Some folks will restart machines when they are experiencing problems or
shutdown machines at night.

Unless I'm missing something Entourage needs to be launched and logged in
for a user to run rules.

Absolutely. Rules are dealt with on the client side. The reason why I
don't quite understand the issue is that I don't care if the rules are
run in the background, or as I start Entourage in my session. What do
you need to have running in the background ??

PGP is for securing messages you send. The password protection I'm referring
to is the password you need to access your email account in the first place.
Only the user of an email account should be able to access his email account
and send email as himself.

I see your point but the MacOS X answer to that kind of problem is
simple: one user per session. Sessions are password protected. Your
problem mostly comes from the fact that users are allowed to access
other users sessions.

[...]

Again, unless I'm missing something Entourage must be running to run rules.
It's rather common in companies to use "vacation" rules that reply to
received messages informing the sender that the recipient is on vacation.

Yep, but you can set that up on the webmail page for your account (I
think I an starting to understand what task you need to be running all
the time).

Sales folks will also forward email automatically to their sales assistants
while out of the office.

I didn't see any such option in the webmail options :-\

But while you're on vacation, you certainly don't want to have to leave your
email open and running to automatically respond. I'll be on your machine in
a heartbeat!

I'd leave my Mac running and have the screen effects on with password
protection (and I'd deactivate autologin for the weasels trying to get
around that by simply rebooting the Mac :->).


[...]

You didn't miss it. It's not there.

The lack of this feature more than any other is what makes this new update
for Entourage "not ready for prime time" enterprise use.

Well, I think MS should have made it more clear that this version has
SOME support for Exchage and not full support for all functions
available under Windows.


[...]

Definitely. But can you believe our email admins won't enable OWA? Ugh.
Don't ask me why. That's a different battle... I believe most do, which is a
saving grace for Entourage users.

Arrrgggghhh that's quite an issue then. So you indeed have no access to
the out of Office options like I do :-\ The only way out that I see in
your case would be what I described before:
have Entourage running, protected screen effect active and no
auto-login.


[...]

Thanks for listening to me rant. d

)
No problem


Corentin