Exchange 2003 SP2

Unanswered Question
Brandon Buffin Wed, 10/19/2005 - 05:20
User Badges:
  • Purple, 4500 points or more

SP2 is still very new and has not yet been qualified for use with Unity. Take a look at the following document regarding recommended service packs and updates for Unity. There is a section towards the end that details Cisco's support policy for Microsoft updates. They give themselves 60 day after a service pack release to announce its qualification for use with Unity. TAC will not support service packs until they have been qualified. Hope this helps.


bascheew Wed, 11/02/2005 - 06:32
User Badges:

I was obviously to hasty in installing Exchange SP2 and didn't even think about Unity! Upon successful installation of the service pack, Unity no longer sends messages to Exchange (or rather Exchange no longer accepts messages from Unity.) I haven't figured out a solution yet, but if anyone has any suggestions please let me know!

amarc Fri, 11/04/2005 - 16:17
User Badges:

I have the same problem. My customer applied Exchange 2003 SP2 to their server and broke the connection to Unity 4.0(4)SR1. I spoke with the TAC and they will not address the problem because the SP is not "supported". They suggested having the customer uninstall the SP. Unfortunately the service pack cannot be uninstalled. The Exchange server has to be restored back to SP1 from a saved backup. There does not appear to be any other fix at this time.

bascheew Sat, 11/05/2005 - 09:44
User Badges:

I still haven't figured out a work-around. I didn't initially install SP2 on the Unity server, but I went ahead and installed it just to see if it would remedy the situation; unfortunatly it did not. I re-ran the Permissions Wizard and checked the Unity user accounts and they are Full Exchage Admins like they should be. I've neve had any reason to dig into the Unity logs before, but that will be my next step. Anyone have a suggestion on where to start?

d-roush Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:36
User Badges:

Not sure if you found you fix yet.

I would run the Directory Access Diagnostics from the Unity Toolbox and check to see if the accounts have access to the exchange mail stores. We are running Exchange2k3 SP2 with Unity 4.0(4) and 4.1(1) and have not had any issues with regards to SP2.

jsailers Tue, 11/22/2005 - 08:22
User Badges:

Have you found an answer to your issue? How did you resolve the problem? Please let me know as I'm currently down due to the same issue.

jsailers Tue, 11/22/2005 - 08:11
User Badges:

Have you found any resolution to your problem? I am in the same boat and am currently down because our Exchange admin upgraded to sp2 last night without forwarning.

gthaliwal Mon, 11/28/2005 - 10:03
User Badges:

We had the same thing happen with one of our customers but it was slightly different as they also upgraded the OS on the partner server to 2003 sp1 as well as EX 2003 sp2 with Unity 4.04. We ran into a problem with the msg store service unable to connect to exchange but made the msg store account a member of local admins on the Exchange server and all was fine (CSCsa80702)? We're hoping it stays up.

bascheew Mon, 11/28/2005 - 13:13
User Badges:

That fixed it for me! I went into AD Users and Computers and chose the "Unity Message Store Service" and added it to the Administrators group. After about 60 seconds I had 55 voicemails drop into my email box. Thank you for the tip!

gordon.hawkins Mon, 11/28/2005 - 13:37
User Badges:

Does it fix the issue for anyone else? I really need to install SP2, but I am hesitant when Cisco has not approved it.

jsailers Mon, 11/28/2005 - 15:35
User Badges:

We had the same issue regarding the upgrade of the OS to 2003 SP1. I ended up adding the Msg store and directory accounts to the local administrator group of the partner exchange server also, and that seemed to work for me as well. I'm just interested in what changed from W2K3 SP1 that required me to add those users to the local admins group on the exchange server. The accounts are already in the Domain Admins group which already belongs to the local administrator group, so it should have been fine.


This Discussion