 




<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Configuring a disaster recovery plan for Exchange Server 2007</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/configuring-a-disaster-recovery-plan-for-exchange-server-2007/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/configuring-a-disaster-recovery-plan-for-exchange-server-2007/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 05:16:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: TomLiotta</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/configuring-a-disaster-recovery-plan-for-exchange-server-2007/#comment-110469</link>
		<dc:creator>TomLiotta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-110469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;EM&gt;I read that it supports all versions...&lt;/EM&gt;
&#160;
After looking at your posting history, it&#039;s hard to accept that you &quot;read&quot; anything about the product at all. More likely you just found an old problem to post spam about your product. Since you post it anonymously, you apparently aren&#039;t proud to be associated with the product. Is it really that bad?
&#160;
Tom]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>I read that it supports all versions&#8230;</em><br />
&nbsp;<br />
After looking at your posting history, it&#8217;s hard to accept that you &#8220;read&#8221; anything about the product at all. More likely you just found an old problem to post spam about your product. Since you post it anonymously, you apparently aren&#8217;t proud to be associated with the product. Is it really that bad?<br />
&nbsp;<br />
Tom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: recovery123</title>
		<link>http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/configuring-a-disaster-recovery-plan-for-exchange-server-2007/#comment-110460</link>
		<dc:creator>recovery123</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 06:49:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-110460</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are also some third party applications which help to repair and recover the damaged Exchange database file and the&#160;recovered database can be mount directly on the server like &#160; http://www.edbtopst-converter.com &#160; I read that it supports all versions of MS Exchange server and provides&#160;two options. User can save the recovered database file either into .edb OR can export Exchange mailboxes in individual .pst files(which can be imported into MS&#160;Outlook).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are also some third party applications which help to repair and recover the damaged Exchange database file and the&nbsp;recovered database can be mount directly on the server like &nbsp; <a href="http://www.edbtopst-converter.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.edbtopst-converter.com</a> &nbsp; I read that it supports all versions of MS Exchange server and provides&nbsp;two options. User can save the recovered database file either into .edb OR can export Exchange mailboxes in individual .pst files(which can be imported into MS&nbsp;Outlook).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using memcached
Database Caching 6/9 queries in 0.012 seconds using memcached
Object Caching 282/285 objects using memcached

Served from: itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com @ 2013-05-25 07:21:23 -->