File Explorer Mailbox Export to PST

[sfabs]

Hi Everyone

File explorer is brilliant for exporting Mailboxes and I love it.

BUT, the issue I have... the mailboxes are restored as Folders within a master folder of the mailbox users name.

To clear this confusion up. When you open a mailbox in outlook normally, the folder structure is: User Mailbox\inbox etc
and when you export a PST from outlook, the PST structure is the same... all good so far

But when I use file explore to export a mailbox, it adds another level that I dont want. So when you open the exported PST file you see: User Mailbox\User Mailbox(folder)\inbox etc

The problem with this is, that if I try to import a Mailbox "into same folder" in Outlook, the inbox is no longer imported into the inbox, it is now imported into an inbox folder within another folder off the mailbox root. Rather than the mailbox default "inbox" folder.

How can I export Mailboxes from Veeam without adding this additional folder layer to the PST??

I found the following thread from 2 or so years ago that discussed this issue... the final 2 posts suggest Veeam had fixed this. But when I try to export a single mail file, the problem remains!?
veeam-backup-replication-f2/restore-to- ... 31741.html

hope this makes sense

[foggy]

Hi, this is currently an expected behavior though we have plans to change it so mailbox is exported without the excessive folder layer. Thanks!

[sfabs]

Hi Foggy, thanks for the reply... in the thread (linked in my question) you said:

"In Veeam B&R 9.5, all the restored mailboxes are placed into a single PST file, each in its own root subfolder. Mailbox structure is recreated according to the one stored in backup. If you're restoring just a single mailbox, its contents will go right into PST root."

So it sounds like it was fixed then... in fact, I did some exports in 2018 and I have just checked them (as I stored them) and they are correct, exported without the additional layer. So it sounds like you fixed it, but it is broken again now?

[foggy]

Yes, that's correct. For some reason, the old behavior is back again, so we need to address it in future versions.