Hi,

We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for what 
we want.

There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't see it 
being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user 
mailboxes?


Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other solutions 
for the shared public mailboxes?

Thanks,

Sharepoint was being touted in favour of Public Folders.

Public Folders are fully supported in Exchange 2007, with improved managment 
functionality in Exchange 2007 SP1.

Oliver

Exchange 2007 still fully supports public folders, so the decision to drop 
them is yours alone.
It appears that you have a solution in place that works for you.


"David Naffy" <David Naffy@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:eZj1pfr0IHA.4336@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for 
> what we want.
>
> There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't see 
> it being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user 
> mailboxes?
>
>
> Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other 
> solutions for the shared public mailboxes?
>
> Thanks,
>
>

Improved ??? :)

"Oliver Moazzezi [MVP]"  wrote in message 
news:eW5PUds0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Sharepoint was being touted in favour of Public Folders.
>
> Public Folders are fully supported in Exchange 2007, with improved managment functionality in 
> Exchange 2007 SP1.
>
> Oliver
>
>

The ability to manage PF's was seriously crippled in the RTM version of the 
EMC.
SP1 added PF management improvements to the EMC.


"Diamondas"  wrote in message 
news:epP$Kos0IHA.5944@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Improved ??? :)
>
> "Oliver Moazzezi [MVP]"  wrote in message 
> news:eW5PUds0IHA.2068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Sharepoint was being touted in favour of Public Folders.
>>
>> Public Folders are fully supported in Exchange 2007, with improved 
>> managment functionality in Exchange 2007 SP1.
>>
>> Oliver
>>
>>
>
>

> Improved ??? :)

Talking Exchange 2007 RTM to Exchange 2007 SP1 ;-)

Oliver

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, "David Naffy" <David
Naffy@nospam.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for what 
>we want.

Yep. They are still the best place for subscribed mailing lists,
repositories of some email etc...

>
>There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't see it 
>being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user 
>mailboxes?
>
>
>Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other solutions 
>for the shared public mailboxes?


Sharepoint isnt ready to replace public folders. The 2007 Public
folders management stuff still kinda bites, but is better than
nothing.


>
>Thanks,
>

EX2K3 or EX2K7 . Public Folders are just too muvh to bother with. Best bet is 
to move content, to Sharpoint. 

"Andy David {MVP}" wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, "David Naffy" <David
> Naffy@nospam.com> wrote:
> 
> >Hi,
> >
> >We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for what 
> >we want.
> 
> Yep. They are still the best place for subscribed mailing lists,
> repositories of some email etc...
> 
> >
> >There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't see it 
> >being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user 
> >mailboxes?
> >
> >
> >Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other solutions 
> >for the shared public mailboxes?
> 
> 
> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace public folders. The 2007 Public
> folders management stuff still kinda bites, but is better than
> nothing.
> 
> 
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
>

Thanks to that detailed analysis, I'm sold!

"Roan Daley"  wrote in message 
news:E0B2AFD6-EDA1-4698-806E-66441C24114F@microsoft.com...
> EX2K3 or EX2K7 . Public Folders are just too muvh to bother with. Best bet 
> is
> to move content, to Sharpoint.
>
> "Andy David {MVP}" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, "David Naffy" <David
>> Naffy@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for 
>> >what
>> >we want.
>>
>> Yep. They are still the best place for subscribed mailing lists,
>> repositories of some email etc...
>>
>> >
>> >There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't 
>> >see it
>> >being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user
>> >mailboxes?
>> >
>> >
>> >Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other 
>> >solutions
>> >for the shared public mailboxes?
>>
>>
>> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace public folders. The 2007 Public
>> folders management stuff still kinda bites, but is better than
>> nothing.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>>

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:16:02 -0700, Roan Daley
 wrote:

>EX2K3 or EX2K7 . Public Folders are just too muvh to bother with. Best bet is 
>to move content, to Sharpoint. 

 Sharepoint isnt ready to replace some, if not most, of the public
folder functionality. 

Ever try to view mailing lists in Sharepoint? 
Or deal with attachments in messages? 
Mail messages default to .eml not .msg.

How about mail-enabled contacts?
 HOw do you manage and control those that mail-enabled objects created
in AD from SHarepoint? 
How do you plan to move pf folder content to Sharepoint?
 How much data will the backend SQL servers have to suck in since
Single Instance Storage will not apply? 
How do you plan to migrate client permissions to Sharepoint? 
You end-users will need some training as well.

I could go on and on.

It sounds good, but the reality is, its not something that most places
with any amount of public folders can easily do.




>
>"Andy David {MVP}" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, "David Naffy" <David
>> Naffy@nospam.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for what 
>> >we want.
>> 
>> Yep. They are still the best place for subscribed mailing lists,
>> repositories of some email etc...
>> 
>> >
>> >There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't see it 
>> >being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user 
>> >mailboxes?
>> >
>> >
>> >Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other solutions 
>> >for the shared public mailboxes?
>> 
>> 
>> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace public folders. The 2007 Public
>> folders management stuff still kinda bites, but is better than
>> nothing.
>> 
>> 
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>>

Thanks for the replies.

Yes I think our Public Folders work fine as they are especially for us.

Just we're getting told that after the next version Exchange 2007 they will 
not support them so someone is trying to be proactive to stop using them 
now. However they are also against Sharepoint due the cost and overkill 
nature of it.

I just think everything works fine as is.


So the only alternative to public folders is sharepoint? Do people not do 
the dedicated mailbox approach that people share then much?




"Andy David {MVP}"  wrote in message 
news:56fn549ei1us7831vknrkkpl8uh2812bkj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:16:02 -0700, Roan Daley
>  wrote:
>
>>EX2K3 or EX2K7 . Public Folders are just too muvh to bother with. Best bet 
>>is
>>to move content, to Sharpoint.
>
> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace some, if not most, of the public
> folder functionality.
>
> Ever try to view mailing lists in Sharepoint?
> Or deal with attachments in messages?
> Mail messages default to .eml not .msg.
>
> How about mail-enabled contacts?
> HOw do you manage and control those that mail-enabled objects created
> in AD from SHarepoint?
> How do you plan to move pf folder content to Sharepoint?
> How much data will the backend SQL servers have to suck in since
> Single Instance Storage will not apply?
> How do you plan to migrate client permissions to Sharepoint?
> You end-users will need some training as well.
>
> I could go on and on.
>
> It sounds good, but the reality is, its not something that most places
> with any amount of public folders can easily do.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>"Andy David {MVP}" wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, "David Naffy" <David
>>> Naffy@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hi,
>>> >
>>> >We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well for 
>>> >what
>>> >we want.
>>>
>>> Yep. They are still the best place for subscribed mailing lists,
>>> repositories of some email etc...
>>>
>>> >
>>> >There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't 
>>> >see it
>>> >being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user
>>> >mailboxes?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other 
>>> >solutions
>>> >for the shared public mailboxes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace public folders. The 2007 Public
>>> folders management stuff still kinda bites, but is better than
>>> nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Thanks,
>>> >
>>>

That's cool, but the info you are getting is incorrect.
http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2008/03/31/448537.aspx

Quote:
"For this reason, Microsoft will continue to support Public Folders in the 
next major release of Exchange Server, after Exchange 2007. "

"David Naffy" <David Naffy@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:%23pYrsWu0IHA.2084@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> Yes I think our Public Folders work fine as they are especially for us.
>
> Just we're getting told that after the next version Exchange 2007 they 
> will not support them so someone is trying to be proactive to stop using 
> them now. However they are also against Sharepoint due the cost and 
> overkill nature of it.
>
> I just think everything works fine as is.
>
>
> So the only alternative to public folders is sharepoint? Do people not do 
> the dedicated mailbox approach that people share then much?
>
>
>
>
> "Andy David {MVP}"  wrote in 
> message news:56fn549ei1us7831vknrkkpl8uh2812bkj@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:16:02 -0700, Roan Daley
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>EX2K3 or EX2K7 . Public Folders are just too muvh to bother with. Best 
>>>bet is
>>>to move content, to Sharpoint.
>>
>> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace some, if not most, of the public
>> folder functionality.
>>
>> Ever try to view mailing lists in Sharepoint?
>> Or deal with attachments in messages?
>> Mail messages default to .eml not .msg.
>>
>> How about mail-enabled contacts?
>> HOw do you manage and control those that mail-enabled objects created
>> in AD from SHarepoint?
>> How do you plan to move pf folder content to Sharepoint?
>> How much data will the backend SQL servers have to suck in since
>> Single Instance Storage will not apply?
>> How do you plan to migrate client permissions to Sharepoint?
>> You end-users will need some training as well.
>>
>> I could go on and on.
>>
>> It sounds good, but the reality is, its not something that most places
>> with any amount of public folders can easily do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>"Andy David {MVP}" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:27:49 +0100, "David Naffy" <David
>>>> Naffy@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> >We currently have 2003 and many many public folders. They work well 
>>>> >for what
>>>> >we want.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. They are still the best place for subscribed mailing lists,
>>>> repositories of some email etc...
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >There is talk of moving to 2007 and NOT using public folders. I can't 
>>>> >see it
>>>> >being possible but that seems to be what is wanted in favour of user
>>>> >mailboxes?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Has anyone done this before. Is this the best way to go? Any other 
>>>> >solutions
>>>> >for the shared public mailboxes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sharepoint isnt ready to replace public folders. The 2007 Public
>>>> folders management stuff still kinda bites, but is better than
>>>> nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>>
>
>