RE: need ammo
You'll find that with large messages of that size, you may be fielding calls from remote users who can't understand why, when they dial in, their email takes a couple hours to download. Explaining to them that they have several large attachments waiting for them usually sufficiently frustrates them into seeing your point of view (provided you only provide dial-up services for remote users). Its all a matter of user training. Typical users don't have any clue that there's a better way to transfer files, not only externally, but internally. Once you explain FTP, or even file shares, to them, it usually helps the problem. If you don't happen to be using Enterprise version, and you have a bunch of packrats, you may find that with larger attachment sizes, you'll fill up your IS rather quickly - happened to us with only a couple hundred users. Convincing people not to send email is much easier than convicing them to delete email already sent. John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 5:17 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: need ammo > > > Hi all. > > I have this customer who is unhappy about 10MB message limit > size on SMTP connectors in our shared Exchange environment. > > Does anyone have any scary stories about what happens when > people try to send too many messages that are too large? What > is a reasonable size for SMTP message? > > Our servers originally had higher limits but a few times > large SMTP messages crashed the servers. > > I just need to convince this customer that it is not a good > idea to send large messages. > > Thanks! > > Andrey Fyodorov > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Policy issue
Why not set limits on the individual mailboxes and leave the management up to the mailbox owners as they get full? John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:00 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Policy issue > > > I seem to be facing resistance from management on > implementation of an e-mail > policy. Despite everything our legal counsel provided and > such are not ready > to go forward. They have a problem with either the system of > myself deleting > mail that past the retention period. Some feel that a member > of management > should be the one deleting the e-mail. I'm sure you can see > what's wrong > with that picture. I am looking for advice, besides sit on > my hands and wait > until an event happens that forces them to implement a policy. > > Jim Liddil > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Policy issue
Good luck - trying to do the same thing myself. I had assumed you'd already gotten the OK for a policy. Try making an argument in terms of money - are you using Enterprise version? If not, explain the growth patterns you're seeing, hard limit on the Standard IS, and how much it'd cost to upgrade to Enterprise, buy more disks, or another server vs. just imposing limits (no cost, but inconvenience and user responsibility). It's helped me to try and show the money people the inevitability of having limits, and also to give them the power to choose their own. Unfortunately, if the money folks decide that the business needs a holy freakin' ton of mail, they'll at least know what it'll cost to support it. John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:18 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Policy issue > > > Because that would require that a policy be put in place to > force mail (or > even just inbox) limits. I can't get the powers that be to > even let the > server do this via implementing a policy. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:37 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Policy issue > > > > > > Why not set limits on the individual mailboxes and leave the > > management up to the mailbox owners as they get full? > > > > John J. Steniger > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 10:00 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Policy issue > > > > > > > > > I seem to be facing resistance from management on > > > implementation of an e-mail > > > policy. Despite everything our legal counsel provided and > > > such are not ready > > > to go forward. They have a problem with either the system of > > > myself deleting > > > mail that past the retention period. Some feel that a member > > > of management > > > should be the one deleting the e-mail. I'm sure you can see > > > what's wrong > > > with that picture. I am looking for advice, besides sit on > > > my hands and wait > > > until an event happens that forces them to implement a policy. > > > > > > Jim Liddil > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: viewer of PST
Hmm.I believe this can be done in Outlook. Instead of using the "Import" option from the file menu, use the "Open", then "Personal Folder File". It should open it in another folder in Outlook, but not import the messages into your Inbox. John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Khoi Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:25 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: viewer of PST > Sensitivity: Private > > > Hi exchangers, > > Does anyone know of a utility that will allow a user to view > their pst off line without importing it into your current > mailbox to see old messages. If there is none, can anyone > suggest the best practice to perform this function? > > TIA > -- KN > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: virus like behavior friendgreetings.com
FYI, is appears this worm also is a p0rn spammer. http://www.msnbc.com/news/826033.asp?0dm=C13HT John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Morrison, Gordon [mailto:Gordon.Morrison@;Bain.com] > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:59 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: virus like behavior friendgreetings.com > > > I have had a couple of reports from users this morning saying > that have received an email from people containing a link to > an e-card at www.friendgreetings.com, when they click on it > the web site starts going through their address book and > emailing everyone an e-card on the user's behalf. > > acts like a virus, but doesn't look like one to scanners. > > /Gordon > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: postini spam control
Gonna really suck if your CEO misses an important email and needs it STAT, and you need to go to a third party to get it back.always bad news to take something as essential as email and put it in someone else's control. John > -Original Message- > From: Douglas, Josh D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 9:38 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: postini spam control > > > anybody have any information or tried Postini for their spam > control. we > have looked at all the major players and we are thinking > about surfcontrol > but these people called us up and gave a good pitch. I guess > we point our > mx records to them, which i'm not sure I like, and then they > scan it for > spam and forward it on to us. I've looked through the > archives and didn't > find any info, which is probably all I need to know, but I > thought I would > present it again to see if anyone has any comments. > > thanks > Josh > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: postini spam control
Agreed - I shouldn't have made the assertation absolute. John > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 10:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: postini spam control > > > I disagree with the assertion that it is _always_ bad news to > outsource. > There are a number of outsourced spam filtering solutions where the > administrator can log in and access mail which had been > quarantined. That > mail can then be released to the intended recipient. By > outsourcing the > filtering, you are able to save on bandwidth (less mail > incoming... Which > makes a difference if you're blocking 50k+ messages a day) and the > maintenance of the hardware and software is outsourced to a > group which does > nothing but think about that all day. Similar things can be true of > outsourcing e-mail services in general. > > Certainly outsourcing such services is not appropriate for every > organization, but by the same token there more than a few > shops which insist > on doing everything in house, when all signs point to > outsourcing being a > better solution for them. > > On 3/21/03 9:33, "John Steniger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Gonna really suck if your CEO misses an important email and > needs it STAT, > > and you need to go to a third party to get it > back.always bad news to > > take something as essential as email and put it in someone > else's control. > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible New Virus?
Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > don't have anything on it. > > -Peter > > > __ > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > this message to anyone else. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible New Virus?
Curses. Tack an "l" onto the end of that link and it oughta work. > -Original Message- > From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > > Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: > > http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.fr > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > l > > John J. Steniger > Network and Security Manager > Familymeds, Inc. > Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.familymeds.com > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > > > > Hi All, > > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > > don't have anything on it. > > > > -Peter > > > > > > __ > > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > > this message to anyone else. > > > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible New Virus?
Frethem.E was the 11th, but Frethem.B, which also has the decrypt-password.exe attachment, hit on the 8th. John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > > That may be true. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:52 PM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > But it couldn't be W32.Frethem.E@mm either, as that one was > only discovered > yesterday. > > I haven't seen nearly as many MIME Exploits as you have, but > the ones I have > seen can be identified as Klez by the distinctive subject > lines, and the > obviously spoofed from addresses. I think maybe they were > Klezes that had > their attachments removed by someone else's AV software, > leaving the exploit > still in place. > > -Peter > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 16:43 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > > No, I can see numbers for all of the Klez variations as well > (eml = 6, e = > 2, h = 58, dam = 4). MIME Exploit = 326. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:37 PM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > I think any that you received before yesterday must've been > from the klez > virus, which uses the same exploit. I've seen a few of those myself. > > -Peter > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 16:22 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > > Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT > files, it has been > catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my > ePO records do > not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files > had not been up > to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. > > I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it > that far since > it is running the same engine and dat versions. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been > reporting it as > Exploit-MIME.gen. > > I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John > reported it > as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? > > Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: > > http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.fr > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > l > > John J. Steniger > Network and Security Manager > Familymeds, Inc. > Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.familymeds.com > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > > > > Hi All, > > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named
RE: Unlimited Quotas
Good point =). But we never had limits before - and this led to us hiting the 16g limit with essentially 10 main users having 1-3g of email a piece. 'Twas very ugly trying to convince people to let go ;). John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:47 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > Fair enough, he did however say he had 25 users:-) He > would need to > keep the 16 GB limit in mind. Curbing the attachments will help to > stretch the amount of actual mail you can have. > > Sander > > -Original Message- > From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 05 July 2002 03:40 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > I believe this applies to E2K as well as 5.5 - keep in mind > if you don't > have the Enterprise version of Exchange, you do have a > software limit as > to > how big your IS can get (16g) - disk space won't help you > with that. We > hit > this on our server several weeks ago - it is not pretty. > > John J. Steniger > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > It's mostly a "business" call. Hard drive space is cheap > and there are > > various backup systems that cater for large mail stores. > The admin job > > is to provide your users with the best possible email system, > > so if they > > need to go back all the time to old mails you may find > yourself in hot > > water if you put restrictions on. Of coarse money also > plays a role. I > > would let management make the call to go cheap and small or > large and > > expensive, let them live with it as there are benefits to both ways. > > > > Sander > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 05 July 2002 03:18 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users > on our E2K > > server > > with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give users > > unlimited > > stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. Also we have a > > single > > processor server with 512 ram. So I would make a WAG and > say that we > > will be > > looking at a second processor and more RAM. I am already looking at > > more RAM > > since our server is paging quite a bit. And as we > implement archiving > > and > > journaling this will impact disk space as well as the backup (time, > > number of > > tapes). I also realize that allowing unlimited space leads to users > > never > > managing their e-mail. > > > > So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I > should be > > thinking about? Thanks. > > > > Jim Liddil > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
I agree - the situation we had here was that limits were never established when Exchange was installed - people will convince themselves they need everything they've ever received if they're given the chance (this applies to file storage, as well). In our case, it was mostly a training issue - once we showed users how to archive, and how to remove large attachments to disk, and how to delete their deleted items folder, they became (with a couple exceptions) quite cooperative. John > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 10:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > MTC -- > > I would start asking your users why do they need unlimited > space to store > emails? Depending on your quotas/limits I could see where > this might be a > problem if they get large files (CAD drawings, spreadsheets, > powerpoint > presentations, etc.). In that case they should just save the > large files > off to disk and delete the email. If they REALLY, REALLY > need to keep it in > email then have them archive it off to a PST (no grunts from > the gallery > Ed). PST's have their purpose. Just make sure they put it > in a location > where it can be backed up. > > Otherwise I am with you - give them limits - make them > realistic for your > environment - and force them to manage their accounts. Yes > there will be > exceptions (the President of the company, CFO, and other big > wigs), but for > the rest of the org (no matter how big it is) keep your employees on a > leash. If you don't sure shootin the lack of limits will be abused. > > Regards. > > Nate Couch > EDS Messaging > > > -- > > From: Sander Van Butzelaar > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, July 5, 2002 08:36 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject:RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > It's mostly a "business" call. Hard drive space is cheap > and there are > > various backup systems that cater for large mail stores. > The admin job > > is to provide your users with the best possible email > system, so if they > > need to go back all the time to old mails you may find > yourself in hot > > water if you put restrictions on. Of coarse money also > plays a role. I > > would let management make the call to go cheap and small or > large and > > expensive, let them live with it as there are benefits to both ways. > > > > Sander > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 05 July 2002 03:18 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Unlimited Quotas > > > > > > I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users > on our E2K > > server > > with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give users > > unlimited > > stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. Also we have a > > single > > processor server with 512 ram. So I would make a WAG and > say that we > > will be > > looking at a second processor and more RAM. I am already looking at > > more RAM > > since our server is paging quite a bit. And as we > implement archiving > > and > > journaling this will impact disk space as well as the backup (time, > > number of > > tapes). I also realize that allowing unlimited space leads to users > > never > > managing their e-mail. > > > > So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I > should be > > thinking about? Thanks. > > > > Jim Liddil > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Unlimited Quotas
Not to get into a war of words (as this appears to be something near and dear to your heart), often IT is put in the position to have to: A) Save money by not spending any, period (on Exchange or any other type of upgrades, or disk, or what have you..) B) Provide virtually unlimited service (unlimited file share, unlimited email storage, etc) These two opposing conditions are imposed on us by those far more important than myself in an organization. In an organization, the fact that it is sometimes impossible to meet these two criteria at the same time if often lost on those who make these decisions. It happened in our organization, and it was decided that limits should be imposed. Did we run out of space directly because we had no limits to begin with? I happen to believe no limits encourages lazy usage (storing everything, to the point where you can't remember if you need it, so you keep it) - I certainly may be mistaken. It seems clear to me that if reasonable limits are imposed, and adjusted as needs change, one can get much more use out of a system. To speak to another of your points, sometimes "more disk drives" don't do the trick. Exchange (not Enterprise) imposes a software limit on the information store. Disk won't help if you hit that. I agree with you that you won't necessarily run out of space if you restrict storage. However, I would say its rather likely, from my experience. It may not happen within a week, or even a year, but users aren't typically concerned with keeping their file and email storage neat and clean so to not fill up the server - they have their own jobs to worry about. Maybe the users in your organization are different. John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > Why do you pretend to be arrogant enough to be able to > dictate the needs > of others? You don't seem to have any business drivers to justify your > actions. And who is to say that getting additional disk drives for the > user email storage isn't out of the question? > > And as to storage, it has nothing to do with processor and RAM. > > And most importantly, just because you don't restrict the > users storage, > doesn't mean that you will run out of space. That's > absolutely hogwash, > a justification of why many IT shops get such a bad > reputation. Your job > is to SUPPORT your users, not be a dictator. In the whole scheme of > things, a few thousand dollars for some disk space and maybe > an upgrade > in Exchange editions is petty cash. > > > The BUSINESS driver should not be an IT limit. Exchange really is able > to support most business drivers with little difficulty. In the > limitation of storage, that should be completely dictated by you > organizations Document Retention Policy, which should be > dictated by the > lawyers. And it shouldn't even be an IT function to enforce, > even if you > can. > > > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:18 AM > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > Conversation: Unlimited Quotas > Subject: Unlimited Quotas > > > I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users on our E2K > server with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give > users unlimited stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. > Also we have a single processor server with 512 ram. So I > would make a > WAG and say that we will be looking at a second processor and > more RAM. > I am already looking at more RAM since our server is paging > quite a bit. > And as we implement archiving and journaling this will impact > disk space > as well as the backup (time, number of tapes). I also realize that > allowing unlimited space leads to users never managing their e-mail. > > So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I should be > thinking about? Thanks. > > Jim Liddil > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unknown users e-mails entering environment
What do the emails look like (subject, body) - are they similar? John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Jon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 8:21 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: unknown users e-mails entering environment > > > exchange 5.5, sp4, nt4, sp6a > I am seeing a rash of e-mails being delivered to users where > the FROM and > TO addresses are ex-employees of the company. The users who > are getting > the e-mails are not on the FROM, TO, or BCC lines. > > if I send an e-mail to any of the addresses in the e-mail, I > will get an > undeliverable message stating user not in address book. > > any sugestions?? > thanks > Jon > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA and attack by Chinese?!?
It didn't also happen to say "Welcome to http:// www.worm.com, did it? Sounds like Code Red. Read this: http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/codered.worm.html John J. Steniger > -Original Message- > From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:49 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: OWA and attack by Chinese?!? > > > Running Exchange 5.5 on Win2K server, latest service packs. > > Users over weekend accessed using OWA. Got message at sign on > "page has been > hacked by Chinese." After that page wouldn't come up. Problem > cleared when > we rebooted server. > > Please advise. > > TIA > > > Regards, > Orin > > Orin Rehorst > Port of Houston Authority > (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone: (713)670-2443 > Fax: (713)670-2457 > TOPAS web site: > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Help
Is the problem workstation using DNS? Is it using WINS? The DNS server itself may not be the problem, but if that one machine isn't using it.. John > -Original Message- > From: Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 12:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Help > > > Negative dns..laptop and anyother computer works. > > -Original Message- > From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:56 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Help > > > In other words, it is a DNS issue. > > -Original Message- > From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 6:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Help > > > try the ip #. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Matt > Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:38 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Help > > > OK here goes. I am emailing this help request from my laptop using > outlook 2002. Server is an exchange 2k sp3 enterprise and 2k advance > server sp3 both items. My laptop is on my desk next to my workstation. > It is logged into exchange and using this mail box no problems. Both > laptop and Workstation are running XP pro SP1 and outlook 2002. My > workstation cannot connect to the exchange Server. I keep > getting "name > cannot be resolved". I have removed office and reinstalled no help. > > Does anyone have any idea's?? > > > Help if you can I'm out of Idea's!!! > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access
Are you using WINS or a host file? Depending on the speed of the dialup, I've found that the IP and name of the exchange server in the hosts file goes a long way - regardless of whether a user can ping, often WINS resolution just times out. John > -Original Message- > From: David McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:26 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access > > > She's offsite and a true user. She has troubles logging in. > I might have > to have her bring in the PC. I just hate to do that because > she lives 2 > hours away. > > - Original Message - > From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 1:11 PM > Subject: RE: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access > > > > Is Server A still up? > > Why not just recreate the Outlook profile? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: David McSpadden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:07 PM > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Exchange2000] Dialup Access > > > > > > I have a user that works from home. I have an Exchange > 5.5 sp4 NT4.0sp6a > > server and the user has a Windows 98 Outlook 2000 client. > I have talked > > with her and she can authenicate to the exchange server > because she is > > resolving her name in the profile using the Check Name > button. But when > she > > tries to open the Client it gives her errors saying she can > not connect to > > the server. She can ping both the IP and hostname. I am > confused. This > > happened after I moved from Server A to Server B. This is > my only dialup > > client and my only casuality out of 325 mailboxes. I am > confused. Can > > anyone help?? > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > -~--> > > Tied to your PC? Cut Loose and > > Stay connected with Yahoo! Mobile > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/QBCcSD/o1CEAA/sXBHAA/eJp0lB/TM > > > -- > ---~-> > > > > Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Exchange 2000 FAQ: > > http://www.exchange-mail.org/faq.html > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > -- > The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. > > == > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
