RE: Exchange too many names in Directory error

Hi Fred,

Thank you for posting here.

To isolate the root cause of the issue, please collect the following info
and perform some tests.

1. Please access OWA site and check whether you're able to check name in
2. If you would, use a clean Windows client and install a clean Outlook.
Then check whether you're able to check name.
3. How many users are there in your Active Directory?
4. Are you using the Exchange 2003 included in SBS 2003?
5. Do you mean that on all client computers, all logon users, are not able
to check any user name?

I'd like to provide the following suggestions for your reference:

Suggestion 1. Rebuild Offline Address List.

1. Open ESM.
2. Go to Recipients/Offline Address Lists.
3. Right click Default Offline Address List in the right pane and Rebuild.
4. Click Yes to confirm.

Suggestion 2. Check OAB.

1. Start Exchange System Manager.
2. If administrative groups are enabled, expand "Administrative Groups",
and then expand "<First Administrative Group>", where <First Administrative
Group> is the administrative group that contains the server that you want
to configure offline Address Book replication on.
3. Expand "Folders", right-click "Public Folders", and then click "View
System Folders".
4. Expand "Public Folders", expand "OFFLINE ADDRESS BOOK", and then expand
the container that contains the offline Address Book that you want to
configure replication for. For example, expand "/o=<First
Organization>/cn=addrlists/cn=oabs/cn=Default Offline Address List".
5. Right-click "OAB Version 2", and then click "Properties".
6. You should see two folders "OAB Version 2" and "OAB Version 3a". If you
either one is missing, please refer to the following article Knowledge Base
article to reset the System folders.

XADM: How to Reset System Folders on an Exchange 2000 Server;en-us;Q275171

Note 1: After the GUIDGen utility recreates the System Folders, clients
need to be sent a test appointment request and they must accept it for
their Free/Busy information to be properly initialized. They can also have
their Free/Busy information updated by manually editing any item in their
Calendar folder or wait for 15 minutes for the auto-sync to occur.

Note 2: If you have any customized forms stored in Organization Form on the
server, please back up them by copying them into a local .pst file in
Outlook before resetting the System Folders. We can do so in Outlook ->
Tools -> Options -> Other -> Advanced Options -> Custom Form -> Manage

Suggestion 3. Check ADU&C.

Open the user's properties and make sure that the following fileds have
been filled.

- General Tab: First name
- General Tab: Last name
- General Tab: Display name
- General Tab: Email
- Account Tab: User logon name (pre-Windows 2000):
- Exchange General Tab: Alias

I hope the above info helps.

If there's any update, please don't hesitate to let me know.


Bill Peng
Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support

Get Secure! -
The public newsgroup only focuses on SBS related technical issues, for
other Microsoft products, we recommend you to post to appropriate newsgroup
to get most qualified responses.

When opening a new thread via the web interface, we recommend you check the
"Notify me of replies" box to receive notification. When responding to
posts via your newsreader, please "Reply to Group" so that others may learn
and benefit from your issue.

Microsoft engineers can only focus on one issue per thread. Although we
provide other information for your reference, we recommend you post
different incidents in different threads to keep the thread clean. In doing
so, it will ensure your issues are resolved in a timely manner.

For urgent issues, you may want to contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please
check for regional support phone numbers.

Any input or comments in this thread are highly appreciated.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

>Thread-Topic: Exchange too many names in Directory error
>thread-index: AcW+ss/LWlOlxQvPS0SDku39an3wlA==
>From: "=?Utf-8?B?ZnJlZA==?=" <jacma70@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: Exchange too many names in Directory error
>Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2021 06:46:04 -0700
>Lines: 33
>Message-ID: <BBEB1C41-E552-45C4-AC47-F9A1109E3EBD@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Utf-8"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
>Importance: normal
>Priority: normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz
>NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl
>Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz:5761
>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz
>Exchange 2003. When setting up an Outlook 2003 client for a new user ,
>performing the "Check name" operation to verify the server and alias, I
>receive an error "too many names have been found in the directory service
>the server has reached its time limit fo searching". And consequently
>setup Outlook. OWA works fine for this new user.
>There are around 30 existing users - which have been setup over the last
>year or so - without any problems. I have tried setting up an Outlook
>profile for a different (existing user) on this machine, and also for this
>new user and an existing user on a different client PC, and I get the same
>error. So it seems something in Exchange or AD is broken.
>There are no other symptoms (users all logging on OK, email flow fine - it
>just seems to be the "check name" that doesn;t work).
>Firstly any ideas what may be causing this? I can find nothing on Technet
>Google - there are no event logs updated on the server or client at the
>of the error. DNS etc seems to be fine.
>Secondly - Is there a "hack" for configuring the Outlook profile manually
>(which does not perform a verification) that may allow me to get the
>profile for a new user configured (they are currently having to use OWA),
>until I find out what is causing this.
>BTW this is Exchange 2003 on SBS - although presumably this should have no