Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've found this and this, but they both seem targeted toward much more complex cases than what I'm trying to do, and I just want to make sure I'm not missing some better approach. Here's the scenario:

'Alice' has retired. 'Bob' has taken over Alice's position. Bob was already with the organization in a different but related position, and so they already have their own Exchange account with mail, calendars, etc., that they need to keep. I need to get all of Alice's old mail, calendar entries, etc., merged into Bob's existing stuff. Ideally, I don't want to have all of Alice's stuff in a separate 'recovery' folder that Bob would have to switch back and forth between to look at older stuff; I want it all just merged into Bob's current Inbox / Calendar.

I'm assuming (read: hoping) that there's a better way to do this than fiddling with permissions and exporting to and then importing from a .pst.

Office version is 2007 for everybody that uses Exchange, if that helps. Exchange is version 8.1.

What (preferably step-by-step - I'm new to Exchange) is the best way to do this? I can't imagine this is an uncommon scenario, but my google-fu has failed me; there seems to be nothing on this subject that isn't geared towards far more complex scenarios.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

You can use the export-mailbox cmdlet to export your mailbox to a .PST file, and then the import-mailbox one to import the data in the target mailbox.

You can also use export-mailbox to directly move data from one mailbox to another, but then you'll need to save them in a subfolder of the target mailbox.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 Just did this it's by far the quickest and easiest way imo –  Oskar Duveborn May 6 '10 at 17:07
1  
NB: To import you'll need a 32-bit system with the 32-bit Exchange 2007 Management tools and Outlook. –  Holocryptic May 6 '10 at 17:12
    
+1 for the pure simplicity. –  John Gardeniers May 6 '10 at 22:53
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.