"the custom form could not be opened" error
Hi all, Some of our Outlook clients have been getting the following error message: "The custom form could not be opened. Outlook will use an Outlook form instead." when trying to: - open a meeting related message - dismiss a reminder (in which case the error message is followed by "Cannot turn off the reminder. You may be reminded again.") We do use a custom form for meeting-related items. Seems that recreating the profile or running /cleanfreebusy temporarily solves the problem but it recurs. We have recently moved mailboxes over to Exchange 2000, although the moves don't seem to coincide with the time when these messages started to appear. Have searched the MS KB and haven't found any article that relates. Anyone else got any ideas? Thanks in advance Sakti _ 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]
Help required!
Hi Im working in CDO1.2.1 and MSexchange 5.5, trying to build an application like hotmail. I was working for the "personal folders" part lately I developed a component that creates the given folder name into the session's inbox but now its been giving an error and that is "Collaboration Data Objects error '8004011c' [Collaboration Data Objects - [MAPI_E_UNCONFIGURED(8004011C)]] " anyone would like to tell me that why this error is occuring ? __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ _ 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: Routing SMTP mail in a Hub spoke exchange environment
At each of the 7 branch offices their are 60 users, here is what I am thinking of: - At each branch office a BDC for the domain/NT4sp6/Exchange 5.5 sp4 - All branch office are connected to corporate by full t-1's My questions are the following: -I have read that putting exchange on domain controllers is bad, in large sites, but mine is relativly small, at each site I only have 2 available servers 1 for BDC, 1 for either file print server/exchange or possible wins and file server what do you think is best?? - Even though the connections between sites are fairly fast, should I still make each branch office its own site??? or should they all be in the same site ? what are pros and cons of both, I have set up site connectors a few times and have fairly decent success with them, but not with this many .. so I would like to hear others opinions on this, of all the exchange books I have read they recomend only intersite replication on fast lan technologies, they recomend seperate sites across wan links so you can more accuratly control replication - best method to set up Name Resolution, I have heard Exchange on DC is bad, but some people say it speeds up name resolution since exchange uses NTs directory for authentication, so should I put it on a BDC at each branch since each is relativly small or should I put a WINS server at each location and set up replication, my thoughts is that with 8 wins servers it will be come high maintenance... Thanks for your time.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Bouzan Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Routing SMTP mail in a Hub spoke exchange environment ~ndi How many users in all/at each office? PBB -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 August 2001 21:02 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Routing SMTP mail in a Hub spoke exchange environment *** WARNING - THIS MESSAGE ORIGINATES FROM THE INTERNET *** I am looking for a good document or advice on how to set up the following mail routing setup and any issues that anyone may have seen: I have 7 Branch offices, all connected by full t1 connections to the Corporate office, the only internet connection is through Corporates t1 out to the internet Currently we are running groupwise 5.5 for all messaging, and I have just implemented exchange 5.5sp3 on NT4/sp6 running the groupwise/exchange connector on exchange (man what a pain) and on Groupwise the Mail gateway NLM API. So now I have all of my Groupwise mailboxes synced to exchange 5.5 as Custom recipients,,, this is where I need advice at... I have to join an existing Exchange Organization and route all mail for company.com to the exchange servers running smtp at corporate, so I need advice/docs on how to set up smtp routing from multiple branch offices up to the corporate servers who actually have the internet connection I have the migration stuff licked my users can log onto either grouwise or exchange and see each other and send mail, but it is now time to remove groupwise, and set up the smtp from my branch offices to the corporate smtp servers for outside mail via exchange.. Thanks IA _ 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: OWA: MAPI_E_NOT_FOUND
See Q195656.
> I am trying to set the MAPI property for fields that are not defined in
> the "&H00150040" format as provided by MS in the following link:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q183/0/94.asp
>
> Example:
> objMsg.Fields.Add &H00150040, 234=20
>
>
> The field is defined with "{04200600C046}0x8026"=20
> Does anyone know how to do it?
>
>
>
> Peichung Chiu
> Technologist
> ___=20
> K O K O I N T E R A C T I V E=20
> Creativity | Strategy | Technology=20
>
> 212.924.5388 | http://www.kokointeractive.com=20
> =20
_
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]
Strange IMC Issue
I have a really strange IMC issue that I am hopeful someone here can shed some light on. Our company routes mail for multiple domain names. In our corporate office we have 2 Exchange servers each in their own site. Our corporate server (Exch 5.5 Sp4) hosts mail for 3 domain names, and the other (Exch 5.5 Sp3) hosts a single domain name. The external DNS records for all our domain names point to virtual hosts on our Raptor firewall which re-directs the mail into the appropriate Exchange server. The IMCs on both servers have routing restrictions to only accept the appropriate e-mail addresses. What I am trying to accomplish is to collapse the single domain server into the larger corporate server. However, the corporate server is un-willing to accept the domain's e-mail even though it's been added to the routing list. It bounces with a 550 Domain Invalid message. If I turn on logging on the IMC I see the following: 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : A connection was accepted from firewall.company.com. 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : <<< IO: |HELO firewall.company.com | 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : <<< HELO firewall.company.com 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : >>> 250 OK 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : <<< IO: |MAIL FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : <<< MAIL FROM:< [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : >>> 250 OK - mail from < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : <<< IO: |RSET | 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : <<< RSET 8/26/2001 4:26:02 PM : >>> 250 OK - Reset 8/26/2001 4:26:03 PM : <<< IO: |QUIT | 8/26/2001 4:26:03 PM : <<< QUIT 8/26/2001 4:26:03 PM : >>> 221 closing connection I do not have hotmail on a restricted list, and this process works just fine if I point the firewall back to the original Exchange server. I have moved the 2nd Exchange server into the same site as the corporate server, as well as deleted and re-created the IMC on the corporate server, all with no effect. I am completely at a loss as to why this server will not accept this one domain name. Any insights any one has, or ideas as to where else to look for clues would be greatly appreciated. Bill Kastner Network Administrator RAND Worldwide [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: MEC Awards 2001
Said same Son used to sit on the floor, just out of sight of one father sitting on the couch who used to place his can of beer on the floor And prompty manage to consume most of the contents when I was too busy watching TV! - He was about 2-2 1/2 as well at the time... I'm sure he is passing the traditions doen to his Brother and Sister now (he's 12, sis is 8 and youngest boy is 6!) That is going to be a lot of booze if I'm not careful!! PBB -Original Message- From: Michael L. Callahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 26 August 2001 22:15 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 My son (2 1/2 yrs.) has had an inexplicable penchant for Guinness from birth; imagine the looks I receive at the Irish Festival when people see him pestering me for a drinkhe just made me dance Latin with him. I dread the teenage years. Children, all said and done, are absolutely the loveliest things on earth. And Rex, You said... "1) At least with a computer it does what I expect it to do. Very logical and orderly.(2) 2) Except for those occasions when it does something totally unexpected. (3) 3) Usually those unexpected things can be traced back to my own silly actions at some point." The same point can be made for one's reproductive system.. -Original Message- From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 ~ndi Hehe! - My son used to insist that I throw him FULL cans at him to keep him quiet - and that was at age six! PBB -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 August 2001 05:19 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 *** WARNING - THIS MESSAGE ORIGINATES FROM THE INTERNET *** I just throw empty beer cans at 'em when they say that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Neubauer, Joseph Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 yes - but you have 3 or 4 years of "Daddy play with ME!" in stereo until then. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 I disagree. Two are easier. One requires much more attention. With two (reasonably closely together in age), they entertain each other much of the time. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of missy koslosky Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 Funny. People keep telling me that a second won't make things more difficult. I knew they were lying. M - Original Message - From: "Neubauer, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Ah don't worry - Someone one told me that two was 10 times harder than one They we lying to me. its 100 times harder! -Original Message- From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Ahh.. such great encouragment once can receieve from this list. With the imminent birth of my second, my joy is turning into fear or the unknown.(1) --rex 1) At least with a computer it does what I expect it to do. Very logical and orderly.(2) 2) Except for those occasions when it does something totally unexpected. (3) 3) Usually those unexpected things can be traced back to my own silly actions at some point. -Original Message- From: Rosenthal, Daniel A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Like you can't imagine. > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > That must have hurt. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Tech Consultant > Compaq Computer Corporation > All your base are belong to us. > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rosenthal, > Daniel A. > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > You don't want to be away from home now...I had my second in > March and still > can't leave! > > > -Original Message- > > From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:53 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > airlines won't let a women who is due in 6 days fly.. liablity risk. > > > > Orlando
RE: MEC Awards 2001
My son (2 1/2 yrs.) has had an inexplicable penchant for Guinness from birth; imagine the looks I receive at the Irish Festival when people see him pestering me for a drinkhe just made me dance Latin with him. I dread the teenage years. Children, all said and done, are absolutely the loveliest things on earth. And Rex, You said... "1) At least with a computer it does what I expect it to do. Very logical and orderly.(2) 2) Except for those occasions when it does something totally unexpected. (3) 3) Usually those unexpected things can be traced back to my own silly actions at some point." The same point can be made for one's reproductive system.. -Original Message- From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 ~ndi Hehe! - My son used to insist that I throw him FULL cans at him to keep him quiet - and that was at age six! PBB -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 August 2001 05:19 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 *** WARNING - THIS MESSAGE ORIGINATES FROM THE INTERNET *** I just throw empty beer cans at 'em when they say that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Neubauer, Joseph Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 yes - but you have 3 or 4 years of "Daddy play with ME!" in stereo until then. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 I disagree. Two are easier. One requires much more attention. With two (reasonably closely together in age), they entertain each other much of the time. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of missy koslosky Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 Funny. People keep telling me that a second won't make things more difficult. I knew they were lying. M - Original Message - From: "Neubauer, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Ah don't worry - Someone one told me that two was 10 times harder than one They we lying to me. its 100 times harder! -Original Message- From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Ahh.. such great encouragment once can receieve from this list. With the imminent birth of my second, my joy is turning into fear or the unknown.(1) --rex 1) At least with a computer it does what I expect it to do. Very logical and orderly.(2) 2) Except for those occasions when it does something totally unexpected. (3) 3) Usually those unexpected things can be traced back to my own silly actions at some point. -Original Message- From: Rosenthal, Daniel A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Like you can't imagine. > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > That must have hurt. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Tech Consultant > Compaq Computer Corporation > All your base are belong to us. > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rosenthal, > Daniel A. > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > You don't want to be away from home now...I had my second in > March and still > can't leave! > > > -Original Message- > > From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:53 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > airlines won't let a women who is due in 6 days fly.. liablity risk. > > > > Orlando is a bit too far to drive from Chicago.. Besides the > > need to stop > > ever hour for her to go to the bathroom, there is the risk of > > her going into > > labor and giving birth in the car.. or during one of the > > keynote sessions.. > > > > Naw.. I'll just have to pass this year and hit MEC next year. > > > > --rex > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Tuip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:16 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > You could bring your wife ... > > > > Martin > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ch
RE: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol
Thanks. I knew all that. And I agree. That's why I posted. Because I am getting sick of the topic coming up every two days (and it's been for a few years, not months), I would really like to get together and quantify the exact extent of the issue. (Course, I'd probably be able to do that with Google or Cisco support, but there's so much "he said - she said" around this issue I wouldn't trust that) If your CEO tells you "I can't email my husband, go fix our email system NOW" and the CEO's husband's Netadmin tells you to go pound sand because he damn well WILL NOT shutoff mailguard, what the heck does some email admin from some two-bit agency in the middle of Texas know anyway blah blah blah... What are you gonna say? Your job is email, his is security. He's gonna win on the Cisco debate, for many many of the people on this list who have 37 other job functions and have never even SEEN a cisco firewall. So my point is to quantify TO WHAT EXTENT Cisco Mailguard is "broken", if at all. Or if IOS versions below X.Yy.Zz are "broken" but problem "A" was fixed in X.Yz.ZZ and problem "B" was fixed in Y.Zz.Aa. That way, we can tell Mr. Paper CCMP at CEO's Husband's Employer, Inc. to go patch his IOS to version Y.Zz.Aa so that my CEO can send email. Yes. I know that if I board up all my windows, people are less likely to throw rocks through them, and so I'm more secure. And that this is the "security" mindset that Mailguard uses. But it's there, and people use it, and people refuse to disable it, so let's figure out how to deal with it. -tom -Original Message- From: Richard Dann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Sunday, August 26, 2001 10:24 AM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol Subject: RE: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol Tom, There have been a number of discussions on this list in the past few months on Cisco's "fixup protocol smtp". The general conclusion is that it is more trouble that its worth, particularly for a mail system with inbuilt security features such as Exchange. I suggest taking a look at exactly what it does and that may help convince your Cisco person that it as at least unhelpful. Basically, it restricts you to a subset of basic SMTP commands so all the advanced features of ESMTP that Exchange can use get blocked. The sort of thing that will get lost are message size declarations that could be used to block someone tying up your line with oversize messages. There is no security advantage in blocking such functions. I haven't checked the documentation other than for version 5.2 of the PIX software but in that version they advise putting an Exchange (IMS) in the DMS as a security measure. This is absolute rubbish - you would have to open far more ports than SMTP to get their configuration to work and you would be far better off using something like Mimesweeper as a relay and virus scanner or having solid virus scanning on Exchange itself. regards, Richard Dann > -Original Message- > From: Tom Meunier [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 1:27 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol > > This has been a continuing sticking point between our Cisco person and > me. I insist that he turn it off, and he doesn't like it one bit. We > haven't really tested it properly. We had some problems earlier this > year, got a new IOS, and haven't had any problems since. Cisco blames > any problems on Microsoft. I can turn mailguard on & off and mail > doesn't bounce. > > So here's the deal: Anyone out there who is having problems with > somebody who refuses to disable their smtp fixup protocol, please let me > know off-list. For sake of information, I'd like to see if I can turn > mine on temporarily and send mail get through it, from a foreign system > that we ALREADY KNOW is having issues. That way we can at least see if > there's a difference in results based upon IOS version, the Pix model, > whatever. I've got an inkling that there may be, but I only have one > Pix, and I'm not about to roll it back. > > So anyone who thinks they're having problems sending through the > mailguard feature of the Pix, please send me an off-list email and I'll > set aside a few hours to do some testing within the next couple of > weeks. > > (And Jean-Francois, if you'd like to act as a control group, I'd > appreciate it - the state won't buy me a spare pix ;) ) > > Tom Meunier > Network Administrator > State of Texas Office of Court Administration > (512) 463-0282 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: Jean-Francois Bourdeau > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Saturday, August 25, 2001 8:42 AM > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List > Conversation: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol > Subject: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol > > > Hi > > Does anyone had problem with the CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol feature ? > > When activating that my ex 2000 can't receive email > > We desa
RE: Routing SMTP mail in a Hub spoke exchange environment
~ndi How many users in all/at each office? PBB -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 August 2001 21:02 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Routing SMTP mail in a Hub spoke exchange environment *** WARNING - THIS MESSAGE ORIGINATES FROM THE INTERNET *** I am looking for a good document or advice on how to set up the following mail routing setup and any issues that anyone may have seen: I have 7 Branch offices, all connected by full t1 connections to the Corporate office, the only internet connection is through Corporates t1 out to the internet Currently we are running groupwise 5.5 for all messaging, and I have just implemented exchange 5.5sp3 on NT4/sp6 running the groupwise/exchange connector on exchange (man what a pain) and on Groupwise the Mail gateway NLM API. So now I have all of my Groupwise mailboxes synced to exchange 5.5 as Custom recipients,,, this is where I need advice at... I have to join an existing Exchange Organization and route all mail for company.com to the exchange servers running smtp at corporate, so I need advice/docs on how to set up smtp routing from multiple branch offices up to the corporate servers who actually have the internet connection I have the migration stuff licked my users can log onto either grouwise or exchange and see each other and send mail, but it is now time to remove groupwise, and set up the smtp from my branch offices to the corporate smtp servers for outside mail via exchange.. Thanks IA _ 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: MEC Awards 2001
~ndi Hehe! - My son used to insist that I throw him FULL cans at him to keep him quiet - and that was at age six! PBB -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 August 2001 05:19 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 *** WARNING - THIS MESSAGE ORIGINATES FROM THE INTERNET *** I just throw empty beer cans at 'em when they say that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Neubauer, Joseph Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 1:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 yes - but you have 3 or 4 years of "Daddy play with ME!" in stereo until then. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 I disagree. Two are easier. One requires much more attention. With two (reasonably closely together in age), they entertain each other much of the time. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of missy koslosky Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 Funny. People keep telling me that a second won't make things more difficult. I knew they were lying. M - Original Message - From: "Neubauer, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:14 PM Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Ah don't worry - Someone one told me that two was 10 times harder than one They we lying to me. its 100 times harder! -Original Message- From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Ahh.. such great encouragment once can receieve from this list. With the imminent birth of my second, my joy is turning into fear or the unknown.(1) --rex 1) At least with a computer it does what I expect it to do. Very logical and orderly.(2) 2) Except for those occasions when it does something totally unexpected. (3) 3) Usually those unexpected things can be traced back to my own silly actions at some point. -Original Message- From: Rosenthal, Daniel A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 Like you can't imagine. > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > That must have hurt. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Tech Consultant > Compaq Computer Corporation > All your base are belong to us. > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rosenthal, > Daniel A. > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > You don't want to be away from home now...I had my second in > March and still > can't leave! > > > -Original Message- > > From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:53 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > airlines won't let a women who is due in 6 days fly.. liablity risk. > > > > Orlando is a bit too far to drive from Chicago.. Besides the > > need to stop > > ever hour for her to go to the bathroom, there is the risk of > > her going into > > labor and giving birth in the car.. or during one of the > > keynote sessions.. > > > > Naw.. I'll just have to pass this year and hit MEC next year. > > > > --rex > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Tuip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 11:16 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > You could bring your wife ... > > > > Martin > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Choi Rex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 5:50 PM > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > > *sigh* > > > > > > I'd love to go to MEC this year.. unfortunatly, my wife is > > due with our > > 2nd > > > baby the first week of October. > > > Unless I wanted to be single again (I don't) it didn't seem > > like a good > > time > > > to skip out for a week.. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 10:48 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > > > > What about Best Fish Tacos? > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > > Tech Consultant > > > Compaq Computer Corporation > > > All your base are belong to us. > > > > > > > > >
RE: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol
Tom, There have been a number of discussions on this list in the past few months on Cisco's "fixup protocol smtp". The general conclusion is that it is more trouble that its worth, particularly for a mail system with inbuilt security features such as Exchange. I suggest taking a look at exactly what it does and that may help convince your Cisco person that it as at least unhelpful. Basically, it restricts you to a subset of basic SMTP commands so all the advanced features of ESMTP that Exchange can use get blocked. The sort of thing that will get lost are message size declarations that could be used to block someone tying up your line with oversize messages. There is no security advantage in blocking such functions. I haven't checked the documentation other than for version 5.2 of the PIX software but in that version they advise putting an Exchange (IMS) in the DMS as a security measure. This is absolute rubbish - you would have to open far more ports than SMTP to get their configuration to work and you would be far better off using something like Mimesweeper as a relay and virus scanner or having solid virus scanning on Exchange itself. regards, Richard Dann > -Original Message- > From: Tom Meunier [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 1:27 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol > > This has been a continuing sticking point between our Cisco person and > me. I insist that he turn it off, and he doesn't like it one bit. We > haven't really tested it properly. We had some problems earlier this > year, got a new IOS, and haven't had any problems since. Cisco blames > any problems on Microsoft. I can turn mailguard on & off and mail > doesn't bounce. > > So here's the deal: Anyone out there who is having problems with > somebody who refuses to disable their smtp fixup protocol, please let me > know off-list. For sake of information, I'd like to see if I can turn > mine on temporarily and send mail get through it, from a foreign system > that we ALREADY KNOW is having issues. That way we can at least see if > there's a difference in results based upon IOS version, the Pix model, > whatever. I've got an inkling that there may be, but I only have one > Pix, and I'm not about to roll it back. > > So anyone who thinks they're having problems sending through the > mailguard feature of the Pix, please send me an off-list email and I'll > set aside a few hours to do some testing within the next couple of > weeks. > > (And Jean-Francois, if you'd like to act as a control group, I'd > appreciate it - the state won't buy me a spare pix ;) ) > > Tom Meunier > Network Administrator > State of Texas Office of Court Administration > (512) 463-0282 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -Original Message- > From: Jean-Francois Bourdeau > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Saturday, August 25, 2001 8:42 AM > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List > Conversation: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol > Subject: CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol > > > Hi > > Does anyone had problem with the CISCO Pix FixUp Protocol feature ? > > When activating that my ex 2000 can't receive email > > We desactivated the FixUp Protocol > > JF > > > _ > 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] > Nextra is the trading name of CIX (Compulink Information Exchange), Norsk Data and XTML, all of whom are part of the Nextra Group. Nextra, a division of international telecoms organisation Telenor, is a leading European Communications Service Provider. For information on products and services click on www.nextra.co.uk. With the exclusion of purchase orders/requests with reference to repair quotations the views, information and opinion contained in this e-mail are that of the author. Where it is intended to place reliance upon any statement made, then a formal confirmation should be requested. _ 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: MEC Awards 2001
Bruce you are referring to. Martin - Original Message - From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 9:07 PM Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > The other Martin > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Drewski > Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 10:49 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > I meant for Martin specifically. He's engaged, you know. > > Drew (MOS) > > KWAR2001 website: www.schoolofdefence.org/kwar.html > Read my Column on OUTLOOKEXCHANGE.COM: > http://www.outlookexchange.com/articles/drewnicholson/default.asp > Pics of Max are BACK! http://www.drewncapris.net > > Murphy's Technology Law #13: New systems generate new problems. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 11:19 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > Since when? > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > Tech Consultant > Compaq Computer Corporation > All your base are belong to us. > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Drewski > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 4:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > You gotta get married first... > > Drew (MOS) > > KWAR2001 website: www.schoolofdefence.org/kwar.html > Read my Column on OUTLOOKEXCHANGE.COM: > http://www.outlookexchange.com/articles/drewnicholson/default.asp > Pics of Max are BACK! http://www.drewncapris.net > > I live in my own little world, but it's OK...they know me here. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Martin Tuip > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 > > > Ehm .. reading those stories make me wait to earn the 'daddy' > certification for a while. > > Martin > > - Original Message - > From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 9:57 PM > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > I agree there. We were ok until the 3rd one...The 4th one, well... > > Just imagine coming home every night and your house looks like meteor > > hit > it > > on the inside. > > > > Andy David > > J Muller International > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 3:43 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > I disagree. Two are easier. One requires much more attention. With > > two (reasonably closely together in age), they entertain each other > > much of > the > > time. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Tech Consultant > > Compaq Computer Corporation > > All your base are belong to us. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of missy koslosky > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:25 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > Funny. People keep telling me that a second won't make things more > > difficult. > > > > I knew they were lying. > > > > M > > - Original Message - > > From: "Neubauer, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:14 PM > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > Ah don't worry - Someone one told me > > that two was 10 times harder than one > > They we lying to me. > > > > its 100 times harder! > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Choi Rex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 2:07 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > Ahh.. such great encouragment once can receieve from this list. > > > > With the imminent birth of my second, my joy is turning into fear or > > the > > unknown.(1) > > > > --rex > > > > 1) At least with a computer it does what I expect it to do. Very > > logical > and > > orderly.(2) > > 2) Except for those occasions when it does something totally > > unexpected. > (3) > > 3) Usually those unexpected things can be traced back to my own silly > > actions at some point. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rosenthal, Daniel A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:55 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > Like you can't imagine. > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:38 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: MEC Awards 2001 > > > > > > > > > That must have hurt. > > > > >
