I have tested some archive tasks and now enabled journalling to do online archiving for some mailboxes.
If I search for the archived mails from the Web support, it works. It shows me correct emails archived etc. but when I search from the EX plugin in Outlook 2003, it shows result as 0.
Again, if I check through EX plugin on EX server Outlook profile and select one of these mailboxes, it works when you choose Admin type search but the problem is that there is no admin type search on the desktop using the pst. Only user type is available.
what search results do you get if you don't use admin type search on the EX-server (for the service account)? Do you have any archived mails for this account?
As you can search via the web and from the EX-server, I would somehow point to problem to the "connection" between ExSearch and the server. When you open ExSearch, is the MAPI profile selected properly, is the EX server entered correctly?
Have you deployed the Outlook Search Plugin? Has that worked correctly?
Are you by any chance running this search against User Directed Archives? After a fair amount of time, EMC Support indicated that EX searching via the Web against UDA folders is not supported and the option will be removed in the next revision.
If this is against the default archive, trying logging in to the desktop in question as the EmailXtender service account and test to see if the Admin type search is available there. I'm a little confused about the reference to the PST - has that PST been imported into the archive?
jskoecher
2 Intern
•
204 Posts
549
1
Posted December 28th, 2007 23:00
what search results do you get if you don't use admin type search on the EX-server (for the service account)? Do you have any archived mails for this account?
As you can search via the web and from the EX-server, I would somehow point to problem to the "connection" between ExSearch and the server. When you open ExSearch, is the MAPI profile selected properly, is the EX server entered correctly?
Have you deployed the Outlook Search Plugin? Has that worked correctly?
Regards,
Jochen.