Friday, August 29, 2008

SherpaSoftware's Archive Attender - HTML MSG Format Issues on x64 Platform

In my experience with SherpaSoftware's Archive Attender, we found a small issue with the ability to download and display messages in HTML format when retrieving them.

*Before I go on, I would like to stress that SherpaSoftware does not support installing on the x64 platform, and never has. That being said..

My test lab was designed to run on x64 in order to run along side my Exchange server (which meant using the MAPI CDO rather than Outlook MAPI..and Outlook MAPI is what Sherpa uses). The issue is found when attempting to retrieve a message in HTML format from the archive as seen below:

The issue comes when the user decides hit the 'Cancel' button and pull the message down as an HTML. This is beneficial for numerous reasons. First and foremost, you can then view the message on mobile devices, as well as from a computer that does not have a viewer for .msg files. When a user attempts this on an 64-bit Archiving server, they will get the following error:

Azaleos has worked closely with SherpaSoftware to come up with a possible solution to this, and Sherpa has continued to provide excellent service in this regard. As usual, they continually adapt their product to meet the needs of their customer base, even if that base is using an unsupported platform.

More to come on this front..


Bal said...

Hey Josh,

Just wanted to post a quick clarification on this post. It's not that Archive Attender is not supported on an x64 platform - in fact it is, since x64 platforms can run 32-bit programs.

The problem is in deployments of Archive Attender on an Exchange 2007 Server. Exchange 2007 requires IIS in x64 mode and that forces Archive Attender's web service to run in x64 mode. This causes the problem with conversion of messages to HTML because this functionality relies on a 32-bit MAPI API accessed by the web service.

As you mentioned, we are working on a mechanism to work around this for Azaleos deployments.

Joshua Raymond said...

I should have been more clear on exactly which part is supported and not supported. Thanks for the clarification, Bal!