Switch EV archiving policies to deploy different settings for calendar items

[Constanze]

As

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/forums/archive-calendar-items-ev-7 (run two archive runs with different settings on same mailbox alternating)

has been closed I just wanted to let you know that our suggested solution mentioned there, switching archiving policies between archive runs, never came into production as it did not work for users who had been enabled for archiving for a long time already: the calendar items without attachments intended to be archived and then deleted got archived - but not deleted from the calendar. All settings, registry keys etc. had been set correctly, even confirmed by Symantec support.

Formerly enabled users/mailboxes received the correct provisioning information, sync infos and everything, but the calendar items remained in the mailboxes - although they had not been archived earlier as they had no attachments. We also waited for shortcut deletion etc. - no luck.

With new created accounts and mailboxes, like when we tested it, it always worked without problems.

Zapping the mailboxes did not help either.

Symantec support told us to wait and try with next upgrade - what we did even twice with later versions, we are on 9.0.2.1061 at the moment, but the behaviour remained.

Has anyone an idea about it or similar experiences?
Thanks in advance

Constanze

[WiTSend · Accepted solution]

I believe that when you have archiving of calendar items enabled each item is "marked" even if it doesn't have any attachments.  Thus, when you changed the policy EV saw those old calendar items as already processed.  This would explain why changing the policy on the established users didn't have the desired effect.  Within EV you cannot process ("archive") an item twice. 

You might want to request an enhancement, but that doesn't solve the immediate problem.  The best solution is to modify you intended policy to a single process, then if it is different than the standard policy, use EVPM to put it in place.  This will not affect those items that have already been "processed" by an earlier policy, but will be effective on any new items.

[Constanze]

I could imagine you are right that the items somehow get "marked".

EVPM unfortunately does not help as we want to have two different behaviours for the same object, only at different times. We already tried this (see discussion I referred to above).

Thank you though.