I agree 100% that you don't design around your exceptions. You design around your broad majority - most systems can meet what 95% of your user community needs and/or wants. It's our job as technologists to explain, clarify, convince, cajole, and influence those budgets to allow that design to meet those needs. I know, sometimes you just can't - but all too often it seems people go into a design with the way it ought to work already in their mind, and nothing is going to change that. The budget discussions often don't center around meeting the real business requirements - more likely around how much hardware can I buy? I'm talking about designing the system to meet the way users want to use it, rather than trying to narrowly define how it will be used (and note, I'm not focusing on you, Carl - just responding to your post). I agree you design within constraints - I'm simply pointing out that many, many email folks seem to design with their vision in mind, rather than actually looking at the way their business users want, prefer, and perhaps even need the system to work. If people just like keeping their data in "Outlook" as the place they know where it is, they know it's backed up and protected - why should we work so hard to prevent that? All I'm saying is to be facilitators, not Mordac - at least, as much as possible. When I talk to IT admins, all too often I get the impression they have already decided how the system should work without even looking at the business needs. "They don't need that" and "They expect us to KNOW what they need" are two very common responses. Just a bit short sighted IMHO. Along these lines, I might disagree with your opening statement - while there are certainly many who would be happy to enhance the system, I certainly run into quite a few who seem to take perverse pleasure in denying something to the user community (BOFH). From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Houseman Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:54 PM To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Deleting attachments I'm sure any technologist here or anywhere would happily design a system with enough storage and speed to meet the needs of the most lazy, er, demanding users. Who among us wouldn't jump at the chance to do that at every turn? The problem is, the decision isn't up to the technologists. Most of the time, it's up to the bean counters. So what we are left with is a compromise. That is, a storage solution that accomodates the average needs but, if allowed, can be brought down by way-way-above-average needs of a few. And there is nothing more anathema to a technologist than a system that can be taken down by a small subset of users. Hence the small subset have to learn that the world has boundaries. And who's going to teach them that? The bean counters? Ha! And naturally, that small subset are usually the ones who spout off negatively about I.T. all the while happily praising the bean counters for keeping costs under control. One good testy deserves another, I always say... Carl ________________________________ From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Boza Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 5:14 PM To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Deleting attachments At the risk of repeating myself (see http://www.freelists.org/archives/exchangelist/09-2006/msg00037.html ), why as email admins are people always locked into the idea of keeping mailbox size below user requirements? I know many think this is sacrilege, but technologists always seem to want to determine the 'best' way for the system to work, and then apply the rules and requirements to the user community. I maintain that we'd look an awfully lot smarter, and be a whole lot more popular, if instead we looked at the way the business users use and/or want to use the technology - in this case (from their perspective) "Outlook" and then design the system to meet their usage patterns. Users like to keep email. Users like to keep email with attachments. It's data that can be backed up, protected, archived and indexed, searched, and even restored in the event of emergency. Searchable in the event of a legal discovery requirement. With OWA it is accessible from just about anywhere. Ditto with mobile devices. So why not design the storage and/or centralized archiving (in deference to Jason, as he correctly pointed out) to meet the way the users want and need to use the service? Just asking - maybe I'm feeling a bit testy this afternoon. Rick From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Engle Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:40 PM To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Deleting attachments I don't know of a program that will do what you want, but there is a program that will compress your attachments. Check out Max Compression from C2C. http://www.c2c.com/site/products/max_overview.asp Jeff. On 9/13/06, Taylor, George <GTaylor@xxxxxxxx> wrote: http://www.msexchange.org -------------------------------------------------------Kind of on the same line of the PST thread. We, as I'm sure many of you out there do, struggle with the administrators, dept managers, doctors and such getting them to adhere to our mailbox policies. We actually do have a corporate wide policy limiting the size of your mailbox and it does state that if you hit that limit we no longer allow you to send email. Turned that on a couple years ago and it took my director about 20 minutes to run in my office and say "TURN IT OFF NOW!!!" So, with that said, we're looking at something a little more "pleasing" to them folks. We're thinking about deleting any attachments that are over a certain age, but leaving the email itself. I've basically been told I'd be turned into a eunuch if I deleted any doctor's email, but I may be able to get deleting just the attachments to fly. Any ideas on a 3rd party tool that could do this? Let's say something like strip the attachment from any email that is older than 180 days... Thanks, George Taylor Systems Programmer Regional Health Inc. ***Note: The information contained in this message, including any attachments, may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the Sender immediately by a "reply to sender only" message and destroy all electronic or paper copies of the communication, including any attachments.