RE: Exchange Deployment Question

  • From: "John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)" <johnlist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "'[ExchangeList]'" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:48:41 -0700

Adding an Exchange server with replication at the other sites would be
fastest, and costliest.


Why not use OWA on the Exchange server or another server at the main site.
That will save you the cost of 2 additional Exchange servers or Terminal
Server Licenses. Remember, Unless you have XP Pro clients purchased BEFORE
April 25, you will need Terminal Server licenses to access that Windows
Server 2003.


John Tolmachoff MCSE CSSA


eServices For You


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Swanson [mailto:swanson@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 6:36 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Exchange Deployment Question

Am in the process of changing our Exchange setup. We currently run one
Exchange 2000 server at a central site. Two remote sites connect through a
site to site VPN on a T1 Internet connection. One site is a Novell network
and the other is their own W2K AD. The options we are considering:


1. Put an Exchange Server in the other two sites and deploy AD across the

2. Put in a Terminal Server in the main site holding the Exchange server.
This would be Windows 2003. The Terminal Server would need to facilitate
50-60 remote users. We currently have a Windows 2000 Terminal Server that
hosts 2-5 users remotely for Exchange and FileMaker access and this seems to
be working well.


The reason for making the change is to speed up access. Any comments on what
would work best would be appreciated.





List Archives:
Exchange Newsletters:
Exchange FAQ:
Other Internet Software Marketing Sites:
Leading Network Software Directory:
No.1 ISA Server Resource Site:
Windows Security Resource Site:
Network Security Library:
Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions:
You are currently subscribed to this Discussion List as:
To unsubscribe send a blank email to

Other related posts: