[ExchangeList] Exchange 2003: Updating mailbox limits

  • From: "Jabber Wock" <jabberwock99@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:03:28 -0400

Hi,
 
On our Exchange 2003 servers, we have default mailbox size limits.  If users approach the warning limit, they will receive a warning.  If they exceed the "Send" limit they will not be able to send.  We do not impose "Receive" limits, to ensure that no incoming emails are missed.  These properties are set in Active Directory USers and Computers, in the "Exchange General" tab.  I am sure you are all familiar with this tab in the AD user properties.
 
Anyway, from time to time we need to change limits for selected users.  I have noticed that if and when we make such a change,  the new settings might become effective immediately, or sometimes might not become effective for many minutes or many hours even (!).  It seems arbitrary as to how long it will take for the change to be effective.  (It almost seems as of the more critical the need to change the limit, the longer ot will take!).  In other words, before I change the limit, the user is unable to send (gets a 0x8004060c error in Outlook).  After I change the limit, my expectation is that they should no longer get this error, ideally immediately, or at the most in a few minutes, say less than 5 minutes.  Yet, I have observerd that this can sometimes be immediate, and sometimes can take as much as 4 hours or longer to the point where the user is not getting the 0x8004060c "Mailbox PST file full" error.  Can anyone shed light on what process exactly decides whether the mailbox limit is in effect, when the user hits the "SEND" button?  Especially if the mailbox is already flagged as being full?
 
I am pretty sure this is not simply because of Active Directory propagation.  For every other AD change that I make, the change typically takes no more than 1-2 minutes before the AD is updated (e.g. changing a name, email address, etc.)  So the delay in this particular case is being caused by some other level of synchronization I suspect.
 
TIA, any assistance on this would be appreciated.
 
best regards
JW
 

Other related posts: