Another six weeks has gone by and it’s time for another set of Exchange roll-ups. The splendidly-named Customer Experience Team released RU8 for Exchange 2007 SP3 and RU4 for Exchange 2010 SP2 on August 14. The big story around Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 is the expansion of retention policies to cover Calendar and Task items. You can find out more about this topic from my post on WindowsITPro.com.
Apart from the new functionality, RU4 contains a set of bug fixes that range from the interesting to the ho-hum. Here’s my take on the 22 fixes included in RU4 as listed in KB2706690. Some weird problems that cause different components (Edge Transport, Information Store, and RPC Client Access) to fail are addressed, plus the infamous WebReady problem caused by a faulty Oracle software library is fixed.
The majority of the problems that have been fixed seem to be edge conditions that most deployments are unlikely to meet. Other problems in hosting or multi-domain environments are also fixed. As with all roll-up updates, it’s wise to review all of the fixed problems with a view of identifying issues that are important for you or could explain some “funnies” that you’ve been experiencing. Be sure to test RU4 carefully before deployment, especially because of the change in retention policy processing.
Microsoft KB title
|2536846||Email messages sent to a mail-enabled public folder may be queued in a delivery queue on the Hub Transport server.||Problem occurs when a mailbox server hosting either the PF hierarchy or the first copy of the target PF is unavailable. The result is that messages are queued until that server becomes available again. Fixed now!|
|2632409||Sent item is copied to the Sent Items folder of the wrong mailbox when a user is granted the Send As permission.||The sending mailbox has both Full Access and Send As permissions for another mailbox (pretty common in scenarios such as manager-assistant) and the message ends up in the sender’s mailbox rather than the “send as” mailbox.|
|2637915||“550 5.7.1” NDR when an email is sent between tenant organizations in a multi-tenant Exchange 2010 environment.||Exchange 2010 contains code to detect possible message loops that is invoked under certain circumstances when hosting multiple organizations. As it turns out, the code is a little picky, so it’s been told to behave itself and let the message get through.|
|2677727||MRM cannot process retention policies on a cloud-based archive mailbox if the primary mailbox is in an on-premises Exchange 2010 organization.||A Watson dump occurs when MRM running on an Office 365 server attempts to process an archive mailbox located. The issue being that Office 365 didn’t have access to some essential folder information maintained in the primary mailbox in an on-premises server.|
|2685001||Retention policies do not work for Calendar and Tasks folder.||Quite. That’s the reason why RU4 has closed the gap and now allows the Calendar and Tasks folders to be processed (with care).|
|2686540||Journal report is not delivered to a journaling mailbox||Problem occurs when the transport system attempts to process a journal report for a read-only message delivered to a user mailbox and finds that it can’t cope with a property of the TNEF attachment in the journal report.|
|2689025||Performance issues using the light version of Outlook Web||Apart from indicating issues such as taking > 5 seconds to open a message, no great detail about the problem is provided. I assume that some coding problems were found to explain the problem.|
|2698571||Some messages are not delivered when the MessageRateLimit parameter is set in a throttling policy.||MessageRateLimit establishes the number of messages that a mailbox can submit to the transport system per minute and is set in a throttling policy that is then applied to a user mailbox. The problem appears when Outlook is configured in cached Exchange mode and a number of messages are created offline. When Outlook connects, the messages are uploaded to the server and the message rate limit is encountered. Messages that exceed the rate limit are copied to the Sent Items folder but are not delivered and the user doesn’t receive an NDR. Not good.|
|2698899||Add-ADPermission fails when DomainController parameter is used||Problem only occurs in a multi-domain environment and it’s all to do with making sure that Exchange has the right AD information necessary to make changes to a user account.|
|2700172||Recipient’s email address is resolved incorrectly by OWA||The problem occurs when email addresses contain hyphens. OWA uses hyphens as word-breakers and gets confused and selects the wrong address when it resolves email recipients.|
|2701162||User who is granted Full Access to another user’s mailbox can’t see Free/Busy information||The user can see some information, but no detail of meetings/appointments, etc. Basically all due because Exchange doesn’t resolve permissions correctly.|
|2701624||ItemSubject field is empty when Search-MailboxAuditLog is used to return information from mailbox audit log||Problem occurs when the cmdlet attempts to fetch details of mailbox audit log records from the wrong place.|
|2702963||“Open Message in Conflict” button not available in a conflict notification message||Conflicts occur in public folders when multiple users attempt concurrent edits of the same item. When this happens, Exchange is supposed to display a form to the users and PF owners to allow them to resolve the conflict. It doesn’t happen, but does now.|
|2707242||The Information Store service stops responding||Problem occurs when many (!!!) users attempt to access a public folder at the same time causing a deadlock to happen. Not good.|
|2709014||Edge Transport process crashes intermittently||Looks as if the internal code encounters some problems when it attempts to process certain messages.|
|2709935||Edge Transport process repeatedly crashes||Seems similar to 2709014, except that the Edge Transport process keeps on crashing.|
|2713339||Multi-mailbox search returns incorrect results for complex searches||AQS is the query language used for multi-mailbox searches. In this instance, it seems that the AQS syntax is parsed incorrectly when complex (multiple clauses) searches are constructed.|
|2713371||Throttling policy throttles all EWS applications||Exchange Web Services (EWS) is used for applications such as Outlook for Mac. This problem reports that a EWS thread that consumes more resources than permitted by the throttling policy will have the effect of stopping processing for all other threads for all EWS applications belonging to the same user. As the KB says, this happens “unexpectedly”.|
|2719894||RPC Client Access service consumes 100% CPU and stops responding.||The RPC Client Access service handles incoming MAPI client connections (Outlook) and the problem is due to incorrect management of the worker threads used to handle these connections.|
|2723383||Incorrect time zone shown when the Resource Booking Attendant declines a meeting request from a user in a different time zone.||Could be confusing when users receive a notification that their meeting request was declined for a time that’s different to the one that they requested.|
|2724188||A subject containing colons is truncated in a mixed Exchange 2003/2010 organization.||Problem occurs when multiple colons are in message subjects and items are then moved or copied by Outlook from an Exchange 2003 mailbox to an Exchange 2010 mailbox. Exchange does some “renormalization” of the MAPI subject property and truncates the data.|
|2726897||Event 14035 or 1006 logged when Admin sessions are exceeded.||An Exchange mailbox server can support up to 10,000 Admin sessions, which should be more than enough to handle normal administrative activity. In this case, delegate activity absorbs an abnormal number of Admin sessions, which then causes errors when attempts are made to initiate subsequent admin sessions.|
Also worth noting is that Microsoft has included a fix to prevent the need to disable and re-enable Forefront Protection for Exchange (FPE) when applying a roll-up update (KB2743871). The change is very welcome. It’s just surprising that it took so long for Microsoft to remove this irritation.
Update August 17: See my WindowsITPro post on “WSUS, the WebReady fix, and Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4”
Follow Tony @12Knocksinna
I am not sure if you are aware but the security vulnerability relating to Web Ready document viewing for Exchange and discussed in MS12-058 has a horrible implication. Those who use WSUS to deploy security updates or manually apply MS12-058 will be inadvertently applying Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 as the security vulnerability doesn’t have a standalone update and instead requires RU4 to be deployed. To be honest I can’t beleieve the product team have done this as many IT Security departments will be scanning for this critically rated vulnerability and insisting Exchange Admins deploy the ‘patch’ or admins inadvertently apply RU4 believing they are just patching for the vulnerability. In my own environment I have escalated a support case with my TAM & DSE and I’d encourage anyone else to do the same as this very severe implications both now and going forward
Great comment. I didn’t pick this up but I will make sure that people know about the issue.
Pingback: Update rollup 4 for Exchange 2010 SP2 & RU 8 for 2007 SP3 release | Jason (Izzy) Sherry's Blog
Hi Tony, I wonder if you can possibly confirm my query below when you have a moment.
I’m running on a single multi-role Exchange Server with Exchange 2010 SP2 Rollup Update 2 installed, I use 1 custom retention policy that archives everything to an archive mailbox after 90 days.
I want to install Rollup Update 4 but don’t want to auto archive my calendar items and tasks. Do I simply apply the registry key below, reboot the server and then install RU4?
Value: 0 = Do not process Calendar and Task folders
Yes, that’s the registry entry to use (I assume that you got it from the EHLO blog).
I’d also define new retention tags for Calendar and Tasks so that they are retained for whatever period you want and include them into your retention policy so that all bases are covered into the future (for example, when you move mailboxes to an Exchange 2013 or Exchange 2010 server where the registry key is not present).
Yes I got it from the EHLO blog, thanks for the reply and good idea to future proof if the mailbox is moved.