New Ranks & Badges For The Community!
Notice something different? The ranks and associated badges have gone "Star Fleet". See what they all mean HERE

Add archive feature to WebAccess

Idea ID 2788154

Add archive feature to WebAccess

Currently there is no archive feature in WebAcess
26 Comments
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Good idea to have access to the archive via Webacc. Users, who have no access to the companies network (RDP, Citrix)from external for the moment don't have access to the archive. With quotas the user must use the archive to keep older message.
Knowledge Partner Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner
Simple solution: Don't use archiving. It has no purpose in this century.
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Massimo, ive seen a few posts on Archiving by yourself and to get rid of it...but surely not all your users have all live email on the live storage? It would be a massive amount of data
Knowledge Partner Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner
Yes, everywhere I have a say, GW archive is not or no longer used. There is plain and simple no use in it. The storage argument is wrong, cause archiving multiplies the necessary storage. Groupwise itself doesn't care about the amount of online Data, it basically scales endlessly. Last but not least, GW data in local archives is extremely vulberable to data loss. To make that absolutely clear again. There is no valid business case for using GW archives. That function should simply go away.It lost it's reason to exist when we stopped using direct mode to access GW.
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Hi Massimo. In our office archiving is necessary, we don't have a archiving system like Retain. We know about the data loss risk. For the moment this method don't make problems in our network.
Knowledge Partner Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner
What do you mean "necessary"? If you need archiving by law, you need retain or similar third party solutions, as GW archiving doesn't do it legally. If not, archiving isn't necessary.
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Hi Massimo. I mean "necessary", because for us its for the moment the only way to archive messages. The PO's server don't have unlimited storage. We have on all acounts quota. Some of my users don't like to delete something (Der Mensch, Jäger und Sammler...).
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Massimo..so you dont see any performance difference for a user with a archived setup over a non archived setup? no matter how big the users mailbox grows?
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
In my own archive I don't have performance problems (round 3,25GB)
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
Dirk - The client not sluggish on a search etc? and thats no archive all date in mailbox?
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.