# Global Address List - Exchange Server 2003



## Feral Geek (Jun 18, 2004)

After users have been deleted from Active Directory and their Exchange Mailboxes deleted, is there any way to remove their names from the Global Address List? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I googled and founf nothing as well as Microsofts web site, but could not find a solution.

Feral Geek


----------



## downtime (Oct 21, 2002)

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/helpcentral/general/edit_gal.php
That may help.


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

Distribution list and GAL are different...

Are you 100% sure the name has been removed from AD comepletely? In order to edit your gal you want to go to Exchange System Manager/Your Exchange server (exchange)/ Recipients/All Global address Lists/Default Global Address list/Right click and pick properties/ in there the filter rules tells you everyone it will pickup in your GAL run preview and make sure the name is NOT in there.

If the name is not in the preview but is showing up on Outlook clients make sure that cached exchange mode is not on if these are Outlook 2003 clients. Sometimes with Cached mode on it will pull up a name though it has been deleted out.

If the name is in there look for some duplicate that may be nested in AD I.E. a possible contact setup with the same name in a different OU or something like that.


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

Another way to make a user not show up in the GAL is to do the following -

On the exchange server -
Open up Active directory users and computers right click on the username or contact and click properties in there pick Exchange Advanced tab and in there check the Hide from exchange address lists.


----------



## Feral Geek (Jun 18, 2004)

Thanks Stumped Techy, it was the cached mode was checked, once I removed that the names were removed from the GAL. Is there any advantage to having cached mode selected? Thanks for solving this issue. I really appreciate it!!! Have a great day.

Feral Geek


----------



## skinnywhiteboy (Jan 26, 2001)

Cached mode is a huge advantage if your Exchange Server is at another location. This saves a lot of bandwith and you get better performance using your email since it's cached locally on your HD. Chances are, the person's name would have been removed from the address book with 24 hours anyway. I believe it will automatically update the address book once a day.


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

Cached is just that it brings your information to your location. While its a huge benifit it also poses quite a few problems everything from accounts staying on after they have been deleted to .

Some of the other problems I have found with using cahed mode is the following

1) From time to time the outlook client will go to offline mode and not send and recieve emails.
2) GAL not being an instant change.
3) HDD space use due to caching.
4) And once I even had outlook no longer opening giving errors due to a corrupted cached file.

In all caching is good for some applications but beware with any synchornization technology there are bound to be problems/delays/ and special circumstances.


----------



## skinnywhiteboy (Jan 26, 2001)

These are all valid concerns. However, if configured correctly, cached mode can be very nice. I've been using it in an environment of 200+ users with out Exchange Server in another state, and haven't had too many issues.


----------



## StumpedTechy (Jul 7, 2004)

We have ours up and set to cached I have more users and only see about 2% having problems that I had to turn it off but still 2% of any is worth mentioning when determining whats the acceptable setup.

I really hate when someone comes with am implementation and does not tell me of a known bug/issue that can occur and then we impliment it just to have to live with the bugs so I like to pass along all the information I know 

In all I like it the 2 I hate the most is Outlook going to offline use and the GAL because I get a few calls from people who have asked "Why haven't you removed this person from the GAL yet."


----------



## skinnywhiteboy (Jan 26, 2001)

I know what you mean. There are ways to manually remove the name, but that's a pain in the butt....LOL


----------

