RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
This really is all in the archives at this point isn't it? -Original Message- Okay, your specific point is that having a FE server in the internal network is as good as having one in the DMZ? CS: That's one of my points yes. Well, if the FE server in the internal network is compromised it has open access to all of your internal network. CS: Not my FE server, because I'vwe suffucuently hardened it, wasn't that one of the criteria we were using in our DMZ? I haven't thrown out best practices simple because I located the server on my internal network instead of the DMZ. Instead, I've implemented IPSec and I know exactly what servers my FE server is allowed to talk to. So, there would be be no difference if all of the hosts and workstations within your internal network were hardened to the security level provided by the firewall between the DMZ and your internal network. CS: A logical falicy IMO, because you have not hardened the internal servers that your FE server can speak to in your scenario and if you do, you won't be hardening them any more because the servers communicate with your FE server in the DMZ than I'll harden them talkign to my FE server on the internal network will you? But, practically, I've never found that to be a possibility. I suppose if I personally created every internal system I could achieve this, but I'd be swamped trying to do this with more than a few dozen machines. CS: Sure. But your need to harden internal or intermediary systems seems to be no greater for a FE server in a DMZ then my FE server on the itnernal network does it? IPSec is fairly inexpensive to implement and would be high on my list of good ideas if I had high security concerns Minimally, you'd need a software firewall on all your internal hosts and workstations (which admittedly is where technology seems to be heading). CS: I disagre. IPSec is more than sufficient for this scenario to my way of thinking. I suppose you could put a router access-control list between your FE server and the rest of your internal network, but really that would just be a way of recreating a DMZ. But this path will become more elaborate than deploying the DMZ. CS: No, I've taken the time to understand who and what my OWA server talks to and made sure that it only talks to those machines it needs to talk to. It's not in a DMZ by any definition of a DMZ I'd care to use. What is your fear of implementing a DMZ? It's no more complicated than the initial firewall deployment and often can be done with the same hardware/software used for that firewall. CS: I have no fear of impelementing a DMZ. In fact I have rather a sizeable IT budget I could draw from to implement such a scenario for Exchange if one could provide a demonstrable benefit it provides. I still don't believe I've seen that. My assumption is that you have an internal network. I suppose if there wasn't one, then my arguments might be tenuous. CS: Sure do. In fact my security guy is a anal SOB who reads the rainbow books for pleasure and used to write encryption and compression algorythms for fun and profit. We argue about security stuff after a fashion on a regular basis. Regarding costs, you can't really design without attention to costs (hardware, software, technician time, user disruption/training). CS: Cost is irrelavent to the discussion at hand. We're talking about what is more secure. Your contention is that a FE server in a DMZ is more secure than one on the internal network. I have more than enough hardware and software about to implement this scenario if someone can demonstrate a real security benefit from it. Yes, you can build rather than buy to some extent (open source firewalls, intrusion detection scripts you design yourself, etc) but that would just push up the technician time and expertise requirements to save hardware and software costs. CS: Again, this was a discussion fo the technical merits of a particular configuration. If someone came to me and said "I have unlimited budget, design me the most secure OWA solution you can" you can be damn sure my solution would bear only a passing resemblance to my current configuration or the one you proposed. Pie in the sky desires are not what we're talking about here... this thread was started on a very specific set of questions and a small subset of possible impelementation scenarios. An answer of what is ideal is not terribly useful if it's not an option. It might be entertaining to totally disregard costs in an engineering solution, but it has almost no practical value. CS: Right, so assuming I have exactly the same hardware you do, why is my FE server on the internal network less secure than your FE server in the DMZ? IMO a very practical question. Ultimately, resource allocation is the primary limiting factor in all engineering designs, so I can't ignore costs in proposing any solution. CS: OK, but can you ignore technical merits? Assuming cost is not a d
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Requiring a VPN and not providing an Internet OWA is certainly a valid stance. Would you consider other designs? How about two factor authentication provided by smart cards before you can open HTTP over SSL to the FE server? What other alternatives are available? Perhaps a substitute for OWA in the DMZ that doesn't require so much internat data access and isn't based on IIS? Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Fri 6/7/2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp The point is that a front-end server in a DMZ requires you to open up a whole slew of ports between it and your intranet, so it is almost as effective, if not completely as effective, a staging area for exploits as putting it inside the intranet. One could argue that putting a front-end server in your intranet might even give you a false sense of security. If you want "real" security, don't expose a front-end server to the Internet at all. Require a virtual private network. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ragar, Russell Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Okay, your specific point is that having a FE server in the internal network is as good as having one in the DMZ? Well, if the FE server in the internal network is compromised it has open access to all of your internal network. So, there would be be no difference if all of the hosts and workstations within your internal network were hardened to the security level provided by the firewall between the DMZ and your internal network. But, practically, I've never found that to be a possibility. I suppose if I personally created every internal system I could achieve this, but I'd be swamped trying to do this with more than a few dozen machines. Minimally, you'd need a software firewall on all your internal hosts and workstations (which admittedly is where technology seems to be heading). I suppose you could put a router access-control list between your FE server and the rest of your internal network, but really that would just be a way of recreating a DMZ. But this path will become more elaborate than deploying the DMZ. What is your fear of implementing a DMZ? It's no more complicated than the initial firewall deployment and often can be done with the same hardware/software used for that firewall. My assumption is that you have an internal network. I suppose if there wasn't one, then my arguments might be tenuous. Regarding costs, you can't really design without attention to costs (hardware, software, technician time, user disruption/training). Yes, you can build rather than buy to some extent (open source firewalls, intrusion detection scripts you design yourself, etc) but that would just push up the technician time and expertise requirements to save hardware and software costs. It might be entertaining to totally disregard costs in an engineering solution, but it has almost no practical value. Ultimately, resource allocation is the primary limiting factor in all engineering designs, so I can't ignore costs in proposing any solution. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp -Original Message- Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. CS: Specifically over a FE server on the internal network? Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, CS: Apparently not over a FE server on the internal network. I too
Re: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst
I believe you can use the Outlook deployment toolkit. It allows you to make a custom install that will allow you to remove that feature. Haven't tried it but heard that it was possible. - Original Message - From: "Slinger, Gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: RE: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst > Archives. > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 21:41 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst > > > Subject says it all. I know I can remove the mspst32.dll. But is there > anyway to handle this from Exchange. Or via 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]
RE: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst
Implement a company policy. Enforce it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst Subject says it all. I know I can remove the mspst32.dll. But is there anyway to handle this from Exchange. Or via 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
The point is that a front-end server in a DMZ requires you to open up a whole slew of ports between it and your intranet, so it is almost as effective, if not completely as effective, a staging area for exploits as putting it inside the intranet. One could argue that putting a front-end server in your intranet might even give you a false sense of security. If you want "real" security, don't expose a front-end server to the Internet at all. Require a virtual private network. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ragar, Russell Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Okay, your specific point is that having a FE server in the internal network is as good as having one in the DMZ? Well, if the FE server in the internal network is compromised it has open access to all of your internal network. So, there would be be no difference if all of the hosts and workstations within your internal network were hardened to the security level provided by the firewall between the DMZ and your internal network. But, practically, I've never found that to be a possibility. I suppose if I personally created every internal system I could achieve this, but I'd be swamped trying to do this with more than a few dozen machines. Minimally, you'd need a software firewall on all your internal hosts and workstations (which admittedly is where technology seems to be heading). I suppose you could put a router access-control list between your FE server and the rest of your internal network, but really that would just be a way of recreating a DMZ. But this path will become more elaborate than deploying the DMZ. What is your fear of implementing a DMZ? It's no more complicated than the initial firewall deployment and often can be done with the same hardware/software used for that firewall. My assumption is that you have an internal network. I suppose if there wasn't one, then my arguments might be tenuous. Regarding costs, you can't really design without attention to costs (hardware, software, technician time, user disruption/training). Yes, you can build rather than buy to some extent (open source firewalls, intrusion detection scripts you design yourself, etc) but that would just push up the technician time and expertise requirements to save hardware and software costs. It might be entertaining to totally disregard costs in an engineering solution, but it has almost no practical value. Ultimately, resource allocation is the primary limiting factor in all engineering designs, so I can't ignore costs in proposing any solution. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp -Original Message- Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. CS: Specifically over a FE server on the internal network? Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, CS: Apparently not over a FE server on the internal network. I too can compare apples and pears and claim an apple is a woefully inadequate pear. but it provides you a location for containing external attacks. CS: How specifically are they contained when between my FE server and my other E2K servers/AD/DNS servers there are a host of ports open, including quite possibly the ports which you used to run your original exploit. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as soon as they are compromised. CS: What are we using to monitor this box specifically and what exploit did we use to access the box in the first place (any Exchange version 443 based exploit) that our IDS is going to detect the behavior and alert us? Obviously you need both intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well since it is performing many more functions. CS: This post began with the question of what is the advantage of a particular server in a DMZ. Changing the equation to say 'if we add this, that and the other, and implement a DMZ we'll be more secure than if we just publish our password on the internet' is silly. Also, you certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised.
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Yeah, you're right. Even though I posted just my Exchange experience, I probably don't know a thing about other enterprise-level technologies. And I did miss your sarcasm -- sorry for mistaking you for someone that can post without slamming someone. Don't worry dude, they've got operations now that can fix your shortcomings. I'm off this list. I need to find one with less egos and more professionalism ... someplace where ideas are shared, not trampled and pissed on. Maybe I'm just naive. > -Original Message- > From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 6:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > Um, Jon? You posted your experience the other day. I don't > think you get to comment on "large enterprises" and "4 or 5 > nine's" with only "1 to 3" servers in a site... You missed > it, but I was being sarcastic when I asked for your > experience with storage management. Your response kinda > proved my point. > > You're wrong in your statements below - "absolutely necessary > and non-negotiable" FFS! There are SEVERAL people on this > list with REAL deployments that do that and that ARE "large > enterprises". Do you every check where people work or what > their experience is before you post? You might find it > enlightening... > > G. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 21:34 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with > SSL through a > > firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure > and that's > > it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's it. DMZ > is a waste > > of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes > > gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted for > sure and > > if they get taken out, so does whatever service you're > > running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, > > you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > Exchange > > 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end > server in the > > DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the > > backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential problem is > > that the front-end server has to have access to some key internal > > services in order to function. The trick would appear to be to lock > > down those internal services as much as possible and to get > a r
RE: stupid disclaimers
Of course it is - what's to stop me removing your disclaimer before I send it onwards to someone else, and then challenging you to PROVE that the disclaimer was on the SPECIFIC message that I received ? -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 23:20 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers There is another reason for disclaimers that include things like "if you are not the intended recipient". Forwarding. I questioned the head of our legal department on the need for a disclaimer, and he said that it is primarily to protect us *after* the message has left our control. That is, it's there to provide a level of protection in the event a message is forwarded to someone it shouldn't be. I know, I know. . . it's still a bunch of hooey. Darcy -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Do you think her data was right? I tend to think that the law of bailments applies to all e-mail and probably trumps other legal arguments. I don't think you can become a bailee by force of someone else's actions. I am not aware of this case havin
RE: stupid disclaimers
The idea of you constantly referring to hippa doesn't make me happy. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 22:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't think it would hold up either I'm just doing what the security director in charge of the hippa implementation wants. The idea of posting to the list with a HUGE disclaimer doesn't make me happy. -Original Message- From: Chinnery Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't remember seeing anything in HIPAA that requires a disclaimer. (Although I did say in an earlier email, that we'd do it, too, because of HIPAA.) Actually, we'll do it but encrypt anything with PHI in it. Eric, I don't think a simple disclaimer will hold up under the due diligence part of HIPAA. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: Exporting from Outlook 98
The Backup Agent works fine. I use it everyday. You just haven't configured it properly. Useful to you? Probably not, but as valid a comment as your initial pointless and gratuitous comment about Microsoft. -Original Message- From: Bill Kuhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 21:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exporting from Outlook 98 This time I will blame myself, we continued to us Arkansas Backup, Veritas will go on our new server which came in broken, so more delays. Turns out even though we have Exchange Backup agent, it doesn't actually work and it gives no error that it doesn't. Really amazes me how when it rains, it pours. Is exporting to a .pst unreliable? We were having trouble with Outlook on one pc and a consultant did an export and not all the email came back. We are still using Arcserve 2000 for backup and I turned off the bricks level because of reading it was bad news. So how then do I recover a single mailbox. Microsoft is so wonderful, NOT _ 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: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst
Archives. -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 21:41 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst Subject says it all. I know I can remove the mspst32.dll. But is there anyway to handle this from Exchange. Or via 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Um, Jon? You posted your experience the other day. I don't think you get to comment on "large enterprises" and "4 or 5 nine's" with only "1 to 3" servers in a site... You missed it, but I was being sarcastic when I asked for your experience with storage management. Your response kinda proved my point. You're wrong in your statements below - "absolutely necessary and non-negotiable" FFS! There are SEVERAL people on this list with REAL deployments that do that and that ARE "large enterprises". Do you every check where people work or what their experience is before you post? You might find it enlightening... G. -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 21:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all that extra work was "tiresome." > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > but it provides you a location for containing external > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > problem is that the front-end server has to have access to > some key internal services in order to function. The trick > would appear to be to lock down those internal services as > much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection > system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server > access to internal services as quickly as possible. > > Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of > set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 > Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good > firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based > firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network > defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with > no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price > of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to > do it securely, don't provide the service. > > Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA > Senior Network Engineer > PowerTV, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:05 PM > To: Exchange Discussions >
RE: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages
I did exactly what you said (it was set wrong) but that did not fix it. I ended up changing the extra X-400 address (it had a weird one that was pointing to the other site) and added a hot fix file from Optus and one of the two items fixed it. Thanks for the help! Arch -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages If you have used ADSI Edit, set your connection point to Domain NC, drill down through your OU's to your problem account. Right click, properties, and look at the "Target Address" property. Hope this helps. Michael Woodruff System Administrator inChord Communications Inc. A group of communications companies providing clients unlimited visibility 614.543.6405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] personalmail -Original Message- From: Arch Willingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages Michael: I hate to bother you but where did you find the "the users Target Address attribute" in ADSI? Can you give me an example of what one yours looks like? Thanks, Arch -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird m essages I had a problem similar to this. Use something like ASDI and look at the users Target Address attribute. It might have something in it. Not sure how it gets there, but that is what happened to me. Just a thought. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages This is from www.Eventid.net We have seen this message when an Exchange custom recipient is deleted and someone tries to send an email to that account BEFORE the global address list is recreated. However there are other potential reasons for this message to occur. See the articles below for more info. Try these links Q259343 , Q230497 , Q169715 , Q180547 - Original Message - From: "Arch Willingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: RE: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages Yeah...the mail is flowing fine between sites. You can't really ask Optus anymore...you have to buy a support incident from their tech support provider. It seemed like it was something I did and not them due to the weird routing message. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages Is the mail flowing between the two sites OK. What did Optus say? - Original Message - From: "Arch Willingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector has died with weird messages We use Optus's Facsys 2000 Fax/Exchange 2000 connector with Exchange 2000. We had previously used the same company's fax connector with Exchange 5.5 with great success. After we upgraded to Exchange 2000, we installed the new Facsys software and sent some test e-mails to fax numbers and it worked fine. Later, we has installed the site connector with another site (I think that's not what its called now but that's my terminology - sorry) and now any messages that get sent to a fax number give an error message like the following: Event Type: Warning Event Source: MSExchangeMTA Event Category: X.400 Service Event ID: 290 Date: 06/05/2002 Time: 10:28:44 AM User: N/A Computer: DOG Description: A non-delivery report (reason code unable-to-transfer and diagnostic code unrecognised-OR-name) is being generated for message C=US;A= ;P=Reagan;L=DOG-020605142840Z-115. It was originally destined for C=US;A= ;P=Reagan;O=Truck;DDA:FAX=Arch Willingham(a)+1 (800) 555-1212; (recipient number 1), and was to be redirected to . [MTA DISP:RESULT 17 136] (12) Also, it sends me an NDR that says: The following recipient(s) could not be reached: Arch Willingham (Business Fax) on 06/05/2002 10:29 AM The e-mail address could not be found. Perhaps the recipient moved to a different e-mail organization, or there was a mistake in the address. Check the address and try again.The MTS-ID of the original message is:c=US;a= ;p=Parks;l=DOG-020605142840Z-115 MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:AREA1:DOG The weird part is that it looks like it is trying to send it to the other site (Truck) instead of going on out the fax server. Any ideas? Tha
RE: stupid disclaimers
If you mean "HIPAA", would you care to quote the parts about disclaimers? -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 20:43 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: stupid disclaimers
Only after we've dealt with all the list trolls. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 19:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 200
RE: Searching the archives
If you don't like it, ask for your money back. What other list servers do is irrelevant. The way this list works is the way it works. And it's worked pretty damn well in various forms for several years now. -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 17:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives With most other listservs I can go to a search engine specifically for that list and search through all the posts. The winnt list is that way. What are servers that host listservs for? And why generate multiple local copies of a resource that should be shared? Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment the > CD with your current posts. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ > response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going > to be out of date instantly. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Searching the archives > > > > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out > > here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the > > listserv archives. > > > > 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] _ 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Okay, your specific point is that having a FE server in the internal network is as good as having one in the DMZ? Well, if the FE server in the internal network is compromised it has open access to all of your internal network. So, there would be be no difference if all of the hosts and workstations within your internal network were hardened to the security level provided by the firewall between the DMZ and your internal network. But, practically, I've never found that to be a possibility. I suppose if I personally created every internal system I could achieve this, but I'd be swamped trying to do this with more than a few dozen machines. Minimally, you'd need a software firewall on all your internal hosts and workstations (which admittedly is where technology seems to be heading). I suppose you could put a router access-control list between your FE server and the rest of your internal network, but really that would just be a way of recreating a DMZ. But this path will become more elaborate than deploying the DMZ. What is your fear of implementing a DMZ? It's no more complicated than the initial firewall deployment and often can be done with the same hardware/software used for that firewall. My assumption is that you have an internal network. I suppose if there wasn't one, then my arguments might be tenuous. Regarding costs, you can't really design without attention to costs (hardware, software, technician time, user disruption/training). Yes, you can build rather than buy to some extent (open source firewalls, intrusion detection scripts you design yourself, etc) but that would just push up the technician time and expertise requirements to save hardware and software costs. It might be entertaining to totally disregard costs in an engineering solution, but it has almost no practical value. Ultimately, resource allocation is the primary limiting factor in all engineering designs, so I can't ignore costs in proposing any solution. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp -Original Message- Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. CS: Specifically over a FE server on the internal network? Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, CS: Apparently not over a FE server on the internal network. I too can compare apples and pears and claim an apple is a woefully inadequate pear. but it provides you a location for containing external attacks. CS: How specifically are they contained when between my FE server and my other E2K servers/AD/DNS servers there are a host of ports open, including quite possibly the ports which you used to run your original exploit. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as soon as they are compromised. CS: What are we using to monitor this box specifically and what exploit did we use to access the box in the first place (any Exchange version 443 based exploit) that our IDS is going to detect the behavior and alert us? Obviously you need both intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well since it is performing many more functions. CS: This post began with the question of what is the advantage of a particular server in a DMZ. Changing the equation to say 'if we add this, that and the other, and implement a DMZ we'll be more secure than if we just publish our password on the internet' is silly. Also, you certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. CS: IBID If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging area for an attack on all your internal systems. CS: And the FE server in my DMZ couldn't? Puhleese. So, yes, the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will eventually be compromised and they are suspect. Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential problem is that the front-end server has to have access to some key internal services in order to function. The trick would appear to be to lock down those internal services as much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server access to internal services as quickly as possible. CS: And I couldn't harden my FE server on the internal
RE: Moving SMTP events
a) Refer to EdC's standard reply about behavioral problems and technological solutions. b) Expand the security log. 10Mb Pah! Get a copy of Event Log Monitor or similar, and use that for your reporting. -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 17:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Moving SMTP events Hi Exch 5.5 sp54 Win2k sp2 I am wondering if there is a way to move the diagnostic logging events for IMS to a custom event viewer or preferably the security log. Here is why. I have a group of high paid *ahem* users that receive email from potential clients, sometimes these users will start a big problem with management claiming that certain people cant email them and we are losing TONS of money because of it. In a recent situation one of these users claimed this but it turned out the user didn't check their email for 15 days. All of these users are pop/smtp, so I would like a way to log their logon/logoff events but there is a catch. They logon to a invisible SMTP that sits on the mailbox server so the logon/logoff auditing gets mingled in with the other 1400 users and the security log that is currently 10 meg only stores for a few days. Id really like to only log logon/logoff events for pop3/smtp and not normal mail clients. Any ideas? Thanks e- _ 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: stupid disclaimers
There is another reason for disclaimers that include things like "if you are not the intended recipient". Forwarding. I questioned the head of our legal department on the need for a disclaimer, and he said that it is primarily to protect us *after* the message has left our control. That is, it's there to provide a level of protection in the event a message is forwarded to someone it shouldn't be. I know, I know. . . it's still a bunch of hooey. Darcy -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Do you think her data was right? I tend to think that the law of bailments applies to all e-mail and probably trumps other legal arguments. I don't think you can become a bailee by force of someone else's actions. I am not aware of this case having been made in court yet, but it is sitting there waiting for the first lawyer that needs it to grab it and go. Also, disclaimers can be used against the one doing the disclaiming, as they might in some circumstances provide prima fascia evidence that the person doing the disclaiming was perfectly aware of the risks being assumed, and is thus in no position to
RE: Searching the archives
The more succinct version of what I just said. Note to self: go practice terseness... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 17:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment the CD with your current posts. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone help me out > here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the > listserv archives. > > 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: Searching the archives
But very little that is discussed after you've got that CD won't already have been discussed at some point in the archives, which you will then have the ability to search. And the information that isn't in the archives, well, you'll have your current subscription to the list to refer to, and you'll have read and posted to the new information, won't you? Or are we now addressing the needs of people that only drop into the list when they want something, such as free technical support or consultancy sessions? G. -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 17:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
-Original Message- Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. CS: Specifically over a FE server on the internal network? Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, CS: Apparently not over a FE server on the internal network. I too can compare apples and pears and claim an apple is a woefully inadequate pear. but it provides you a location for containing external attacks. CS: How specifically are they contained when between my FE server and my other E2K servers/AD/DNS servers there are a host of ports open, including quite possibly the ports which you used to run your original exploit. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as soon as they are compromised. CS: What are we using to monitor this box specifically and what exploit did we use to access the box in the first place (any Exchange version 443 based exploit) that our IDS is going to detect the behavior and alert us? Obviously you need both intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well since it is performing many more functions. CS: This post began with the question of what is the advantage of a particular server in a DMZ. Changing the equation to say 'if we add this, that and the other, and implement a DMZ we'll be more secure than if we just publish our password on the internet' is silly. Also, you certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. CS: IBID If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging area for an attack on all your internal systems. CS: And the FE server in my DMZ couldn't? Puhleese. So, yes, the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will eventually be compromised and they are suspect. Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential problem is that the front-end server has to have access to some key internal services in order to function. The trick would appear to be to lock down those internal services as much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server access to internal services as quickly as possible. CS: And I couldn't harden my FE server on the internal network in the exact same way? What would be the net increased risk if I were to do so? Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of set up. CS: Ignore cost, it's a red herring thrown up to say... if I spend more money than you, I can design a more secure system then you. If I spend the same amount of $ and have the same basic config except my FE server is in my internal network specifically and demonstrably how am I less secure? You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to do it securely, don't provide the service. CS: I'm using OWA on the internet and am quite content with my current configuration/ risks. I don't see how simply placing my OWA server in the DMZ will make it more secure and your post, while interesting in a 'it's redundant because it's been covered ad infinitum in the archives' kind of way is purely theoretical and demonstrates no intrinsic value gained specifically from the placement of the Exchange server in a DMZ in my mind. _ 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
True, but they don't call their supervisor when their email is down. But that's part of the gig I know. Say, off topic but maybe you have an idea. For some in small environments, what does it take to prove themselves for larger ones? Another words, how does one go from 100 users to 2000 and beyond? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp It's not our jobs to control the users' content. That's a management decision. Advise management what is technically workable, estimate costs, and then let them set policy. Generally, I perfer an environment that encourages users to use the systems I have so painstakenly built for them. That usually means a certain lassitude and a sense of privacy that might eat up a few gigabytes. Impose space quotas and let the users decide what they should be doing with their space. If they are spending too much time doing personal email, that's their supervisor's problem. It's no different than if they'd spent all day on the phone or reading a magazine. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I see. What's your take though? Are we babysitters or what? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I was referring to DMZ's in general ... > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? > In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make > sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, > dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL through > > a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and > > that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's it. DMZ is > > a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing > > dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted > > for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever service you're > > running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, > > you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange > > 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in > > the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the > > backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > soon as they are
RE: Searching the archives
Buy a copy of the CD and then build/host it online for us k? Thanks 10X -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives With most other listservs I can go to a search engine specifically for that list and search through all the posts. The winnt list is that way. What are servers that host listservs for? And why generate multiple local copies of a resource that should be shared? Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment the > CD with your current posts. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ > response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going > to be out of date instantly. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Searching the archives > > > > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out > > here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the > > listserv archives. > > > > 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] _ 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: stupid disclaimers
Someone needs to create a program that strips the disclaimer of before you get it. Actually everyone who think disclaimers are a good thing need to realize that e-mail is transmitted in plain text so anyone scanning can check it out -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hansen, Eric Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't think it would hold up either I'm just doing what the security director in charge of the hippa implementation wants. The idea of posting to the list with a HUGE disclaimer doesn't make me happy. -Original Message- From: Chinnery Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't remember seeing anything in HIPAA that requires a disclaimer. (Although I did say in an earlier email, that we'd do it, too, because of HIPAA.) Actually, we'll do it but encrypt anything with PHI in it. Eric, I don't think a simple disclaimer will hold up under the due diligence part of HIPAA. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
It's not our jobs to control the users' content. That's a management decision. Advise management what is technically workable, estimate costs, and then let them set policy. Generally, I perfer an environment that encourages users to use the systems I have so painstakenly built for them. That usually means a certain lassitude and a sense of privacy that might eat up a few gigabytes. Impose space quotas and let the users decide what they should be doing with their space. If they are spending too much time doing personal email, that's their supervisor's problem. It's no different than if they'd spent all day on the phone or reading a magazine. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I see. What's your take though? Are we babysitters or what? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I was referring to DMZ's in general ... > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? > In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make > sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, > dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL through > > a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and > > that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's it. DMZ is > > a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing > > dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted > > for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever service you're > > running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, > > you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange > > 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in > > the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the > > backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > > area for an attack on al
RE: Searching the archives
It's Friday and you're obviously not reading the FAQ since this question is answered there... it says to buy a copy on CD. -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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: Searching the archives
It's Erin, and she's cute too. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives It's all about the archives... and flunky- " The server just went south and so did the internet connection! How we going to research this?" me- [2] "Like this." [1] Now. [2] On or about July 3rd, that's when Aaron(sp?) says to expect the latest and greatest ArchiveCD. Technically we'd have to lose three servers for me to lose my replicas going back to Q1 1999, but wtf. I could burn my own CD, but wtf again. I didn't ask for Lisa, because Aaron was so nice :) Paul -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
I like that Jon, good idea. I wish I could. See, perhaps you can tell, I'm a lone gun. The other guys here are developers or dbas and don't know or care enough to implement theses things...so I'm by myself, admin and desk support lackey in one :( Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp That's an unfortunate part of the job we have to accept, yes. Or, hire people under you to keep an eye on it all. :) > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:07 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > I see. What's your take though? Are we babysitters or what? > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:01 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > I was referring to DMZ's in general ... > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:52 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? > > In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make > > sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, > > dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with > SSL through > > > a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and > > > that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's > it. DMZ is > > > a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing > > > dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted > > > for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever > service you're > > > running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? > Besides, > > > you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > > > Jason Cook > > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > > Network Administrator > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly > with Exchange > > > 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end > server in > > > the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using > SSL and the > > > backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > > > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > > > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > > > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > > > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > > > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > > > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > > > If you were r
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
True indeed. I support about half and half in terms of mobile and static users. So, it's appropriate for us but internal email isn't that critical to us. Once internet email goes down that's where the rub is. So to the user here, it doesn't matter that internal email is working. If internet email goes down or they can't access it from the road, they don't know or care whether it's the dmz box or the mail server. That's why there's backups. Either way, you're rebuilding a server right? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Okay, I'll bite. Your original point was there was no advantage over a front-end server from a hacking perspective since if it were compromised you'd have to take OWA down. But without a front-end server, you'd have to take the mailbox server down. So I'd say that Jon Bulter's response is completely appropriate. But further, my users are highly mobile. Many telecomute. Others travel a lot and are in client sites. Internet OWA is production for us. Perhaps it's not really needed in your environment? It depends on your client base. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all that extra work was "tiresome." > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > but it provides you a location for containing external > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > the assumption is that all
RE: stupid disclaimers
I don't think it would hold up either I'm just doing what the security director in charge of the hippa implementation wants. The idea of posting to the list with a HUGE disclaimer doesn't make me happy. -Original Message- From: Chinnery Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't remember seeing anything in HIPAA that requires a disclaimer. (Although I did say in an earlier email, that we'd do it, too, because of HIPAA.) Actually, we'll do it but encrypt anything with PHI in it. Eric, I don't think a simple disclaimer will hold up under the due diligence part of HIPAA. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: Emails being sent as me
My god, its full of stars -Original Message- From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Emails being sent as me my God, mail admin and hasn't heard of KLEZ yet -Original Message- From: Louis Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June, 2002 4:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Emails being sent as me Cue Tener and his amazing link! Regards Mr Louis Joyce Data Support Specialist BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Emails being sent as me I have noticed recently emails have been going to people from my address when I haven't sent them. Also, some emails have been sent to me from my company address ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but such a mailbox does not exist on my server. How can I control this from my Exchange server ? _ 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
That's an unfortunate part of the job we have to accept, yes. Or, hire people under you to keep an eye on it all. :) > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:07 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > I see. What's your take though? Are we babysitters or what? > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:01 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > I was referring to DMZ's in general ... > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:52 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? > > In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make > > sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, > > dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with > SSL through > > > a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and > > > that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's > it. DMZ is > > > a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing > > > dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted > > > for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever > service you're > > > running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? > Besides, > > > you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > > > Jason Cook > > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > > Network Administrator > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly > with Exchange > > > 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end > server in > > > the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using > SSL and the > > > backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > > > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > > > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > > > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > > > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > > > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > > > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > > > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > > > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > > > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > > > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > > > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > > > > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > problem is > > > that the front-end server has to have access to some key internal > > > services in order to function. The trick would appear to >
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Okay, I'll bite. Your original point was there was no advantage over a front-end server from a hacking perspective since if it were compromised you'd have to take OWA down. But without a front-end server, you'd have to take the mailbox server down. So I'd say that Jon Bulter's response is completely appropriate. But further, my users are highly mobile. Many telecomute. Others travel a lot and are in client sites. Internet OWA is production for us. Perhaps it's not really needed in your environment? It depends on your client base. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all that extra work was "tiresome." > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > but it provides you a location for containing external > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > problem is that the front-end server has to have access to > some key internal services in order to function. The trick > would appear to be to lock down those internal services as > much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection > system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server > access to internal services as quickly as possible. > > Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of > set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 > Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good > firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based > firewalls, and
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
I see. What's your take though? Are we babysitters or what? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I was referring to DMZ's in general ... > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? > In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make > sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, > dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > > problem is that the front-end server has to have access to > > some key internal services in order to function. The trick > > would appear to be to lock down those internal services as > > much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection > > system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server > > access to internal services as quickly as possible. > > > > Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of > > set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 > > Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good > > firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based > > firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (net
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Roger, I agree with you from the standpoint of a large enterprise, something that I'm not afraid to admit I don't have experience with. I suppose that for a large, multi-thousand user company, dmzs are standard practice. But my point was that that 60% you spoke is probably about 30% business related. You know as well as I do that users with access to mail and the web use it for personal reasons, sometimes more often then they should. That's the rub, we get stuck supporting people sending pictures of their kids to friends. So we all have to have 5 9s in uptime so they can do this? I thought I was an admin not a babysitter. Any, good points all around. See ya. Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp What are you protecting? Didn't I read a study somewhere that you are talking about more than 60% of the active information within your company being within their groupware system? But, okay, I will start my defense. SSL means that the data moving between the web client and the web server is encrypted. It fixes no holes within IIS. All IIS exploits work over SSL as easily as they do over port 80. So basically with the default install of OWA running over SSL, you are totally toast. It might slow down the script kiddies, but even some of them have SSL attack scripts. You might have a real PKI in place so that you have to distribute certificates to the clients machines in advanced of them using your SSL web server (i.e. you provide authentication of client and server using your PKI certs so untrusted browsers can't get in). If you do, I commend you since that's almost unheard of for an OWA implementation, which usually just uses a server cert. I can't really make that work myself since the whole point of OWA is anywhere/anytime access to your groupware. Okay, I agree, keeping the security patches up on your servers is a major pain. But I find it a lot easier to schedule downtime for an individual OWA box than I do for my mailbox servers. So that would probably be an argument right there. Yes, if an OWA system is compromised, that service must be shutdown temporarily but that's not as painful as as an outtage of your mailbox servers. You can always have redudant OWA boxes (best in different cities) with some sort of load balancing (round-robin DNS or hardware based web balancing) if you are worried about OWA boxes being unavailable. Clustering your mailbox servers is much more expensive. Yes, you've opened port 80 on your internal mail server (and I recommend that you lock it down to just being open to your front-end boxes so you aren't doing stuff in the clear internally). That means you still need to keep the IIS patches up to date on your mailbox servers. But you realize that if you design well compromising the OWA box will give the attacker no special access to the mailbox server. He/she will have to escalate their own priviledges on the OWA box so they can begin moving attack tools into your OWA box. Then they will need to find the internal mailbox servers and begin directing the attack tools internally. All of that is going to take time. Particularly, if you make it difficult for the intruder on your OWA box to load and fire off his/her own imported executables. Meanwhile, your intruder detection system is going crazy paging your on-call pager or taking other appropriate responses. That's they way it should play out. Russell C. Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Networking Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. Not only is there off-loading of the encr
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
I was referring to DMZ's in general ... > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? > In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make > sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, > dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate > revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a > small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection > and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably > are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with > uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely > necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the > notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an > internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you > when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all > that extra work was "tiresome." > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > > > Jason Cook > > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > > Network Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > > but it provides you a location for containing external > > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > > problem is that the front-end server has to have access to > > some key internal services in order to function. The trick > > would appear to be to lock down those internal services as > > much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection > > system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server > > access to internal services as quickly as possible. > > > > Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of > > set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 > > Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good > > firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based > > firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network > > defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with > > no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price > > of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to > > do it securely, don't provide the service. > > > > Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA > > Senior Network Engineer > >
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
What? Can't work...so all people do all day is send emails? In truth, that's all they do but it's not your job to make sure Marge in Accounting gets her baby pictures to her Mom, dig? So what do you mean by can't work...in the context of OWA? Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all that extra work was "tiresome." > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > but it provides you a location for containing external > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > problem is that the front-end server has to have access to > some key internal services in order to function. The trick > would appear to be to lock down those internal services as > much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection > system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server > access to internal services as quickly as possible. > > Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of > set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 > Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good > firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based > firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network > defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with > no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price > of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to > do it securely, don't provide the service. > > Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA > Senior Network Engineer > PowerTV, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:05 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > I guess our needs here are somehwat different, perhaps. We > don't use Exchange in the DMZ (that's ridiculous overkill) > but we do have relays out there ... and we lock 'em down to > specific ports internally as well. I disagre
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
What are you protecting? Didn't I read a study somewhere that you are talking about more than 60% of the active information within your company being within their groupware system? But, okay, I will start my defense. SSL means that the data moving between the web client and the web server is encrypted. It fixes no holes within IIS. All IIS exploits work over SSL as easily as they do over port 80. So basically with the default install of OWA running over SSL, you are totally toast. It might slow down the script kiddies, but even some of them have SSL attack scripts. You might have a real PKI in place so that you have to distribute certificates to the clients machines in advanced of them using your SSL web server (i.e. you provide authentication of client and server using your PKI certs so untrusted browsers can't get in). If you do, I commend you since that's almost unheard of for an OWA implementation, which usually just uses a server cert. I can't really make that work myself since the whole point of OWA is anywhere/anytime access to your groupware. Okay, I agree, keeping the security patches up on your servers is a major pain. But I find it a lot easier to schedule downtime for an individual OWA box than I do for my mailbox servers. So that would probably be an argument right there. Yes, if an OWA system is compromised, that service must be shutdown temporarily but that's not as painful as as an outtage of your mailbox servers. You can always have redudant OWA boxes (best in different cities) with some sort of load balancing (round-robin DNS or hardware based web balancing) if you are worried about OWA boxes being unavailable. Clustering your mailbox servers is much more expensive. Yes, you've opened port 80 on your internal mail server (and I recommend that you lock it down to just being open to your front-end boxes so you aren't doing stuff in the clear internally). That means you still need to keep the IIS patches up to date on your mailbox servers. But you realize that if you design well compromising the OWA box will give the attacker no special access to the mailbox server. He/she will have to escalate their own priviledges on the OWA box so they can begin moving attack tools into your OWA box. Then they will need to find the internal mailbox servers and begin directing the attack tools internally. All of that is going to take time. Particularly, if you make it difficult for the intruder on your OWA box to load and fire off his/her own imported executables. Meanwhile, your intruder detection system is going crazy paging your on-call pager or taking other appropriate responses. That's they way it should play out. Russell C. Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Networking Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, but it provides you a location for containing external attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well since it is performing many more functions. Also, you certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will eventually be c
RE: Exporting from Outlook 98
This time I will blame myself, we continued to us Arkansas Backup, Veritas will go on our new server which came in broken, so more delays. Turns out even though we have Exchange Backup agent, it doesn't actually work and it gives no error that it doesn't. Really amazes me how when it rains, it pours. Is exporting to a .pst unreliable? We were having trouble with Outlook on one pc and a consultant did an export and not all the email came back. We are still using Arcserve 2000 for backup and I turned off the bricks level because of reading it was bad news. So how then do I recover a single mailbox. Microsoft is so wonderful, NOT _ 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: stupid disclaimers
Yes everything I write is protected, but then if you copy it, I disavow it and its yours. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I figure there's that town in the southwest that has the annual rattlesnake round up. Where they capture as many rattlesnakes and then kill them. Couldn't we have something like that for lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers now youre trying to get on my good side ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a law
How to prevent end users from using Outlook personal folders pst
Subject says it all. I know I can remove the mspst32.dll. But is there anyway to handle this from Exchange. Or via 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]
RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Here's what's so sacred: your users' ability to generate revenue. It's all a matter of perspective -- to someone in a small office with a handful of users, intrustion detection and DMZs sound ridiculous, and in a lot of cases probably are. To someone in a large enterprise envrionment with uptime requirements of 4 or 5 nine's, it's absolutely necessary and non-negotiable, and in those situations the notion of having internet traffic talking directly to an internal server is about as likely as a CEO forgiving you when 3000 of your users can't work because you thought all that extra work was "tiresome." > -Original Message- > From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:21 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL > through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is > secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so > that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly > monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. > I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get > taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless > they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've > opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. > > Jason Cook > J.H. Ellwood and Associates > Network Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with > Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front > end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet > client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. > Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, > but it provides you a location for containing external > attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are > sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your > sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be > monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as > soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both > intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ > (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If > there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the > mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well > since it is performing many more functions. Also, you > certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. > If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), > if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging > area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, > the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will > eventually be compromised and they are suspect. > > Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential > problem is that the front-end server has to have access to > some key internal services in order to function. The trick > would appear to be to lock down those internal services as > much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection > system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server > access to internal services as quickly as possible. > > Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of > set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 > Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good > firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based > firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network > defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with > no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price > of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to > do it securely, don't provide the service. > > Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA > Senior Network Engineer > PowerTV, Inc. > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:05 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > I guess our needs here are somehwat different, perhaps. We > don't use Exchange in the DMZ (that's ridiculous overkill) > but we do have relays out there ... and we lock 'em down to > specific ports internally as well. I disagree that it would > be "just as harmful as in the DMZ", though ... perform a DoS > on a box in the DMZ, you only kill communications through > that one box. DoS the Exchange Server, bam -- you just lost > ALL email services. > > [CS] What box are you using to relay OWA that wouldn't be > just as secure on the internal network as it would be in a > DMZ? I can have a dedicated OWA server in either location and > the net impact to my Exchange org seems equivalent. As to > SMTP, the same thing applies IM
RE: stupid disclaimers
So your going to put them on the front of the message before I read the contents and then get to the disclaimer and realize that I shouldn't have read it? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Hansen, Eric Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
What is it that's so sacred you're protecting. OWA with SSL through a firewall is adequate for most places. The mail is secure and that's it. Gotta have credentials to get in...so that's it. DMZ is a waste of time to me. Constantly monitoring and patching/fixing dmz boxes gets to be tiresome. I mean, they're gonna get blasted for sure and if they get taken out, so does whatever service you're running...unless they're redundant. So what's the point? Besides, you've opened up 80 to get to the backend Exchange box anyway. Jason Cook J.H. Ellwood and Associates Network Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ragar, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, but it provides you a location for containing external attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well since it is performing many more functions. Also, you certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will eventually be compromised and they are suspect. Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential problem is that the front-end server has to have access to some key internal services in order to function. The trick would appear to be to lock down those internal services as much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server access to internal services as quickly as possible. Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to do it securely, don't provide the service. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I guess our needs here are somehwat different, perhaps. We don't use Exchange in the DMZ (that's ridiculous overkill) but we do have relays out there ... and we lock 'em down to specific ports internally as well. I disagree that it would be "just as harmful as in the DMZ", though ... perform a DoS on a box in the DMZ, you only kill communications through that one box. DoS the Exchange Server, bam -- you just lost ALL email services. [CS] What box are you using to relay OWA that wouldn't be just as secure on the internal network as it would be in a DMZ? I can have a dedicated OWA server in either location and the net impact to my Exchange org seems equivalent. As to SMTP, the same thing applies IMO. If you DoS my SMTP relay, why would the impact be any greater on my internal network than in my DMZ. Granted, we've got more systems to support, but that's the price we pay for the security and redundancy that comes with it. [CS] Your network seems more complex with no demonstrable additional value when compared to my configuration for the scenario as asked. And Chris, you asked to "demonstrate an exploit" ... we prefer to not wait for one to be demonstrated, but rather do the best we can to preemptively protect ourselves before one is found: use relays in the DMZ, and mix relay products so what exploits one may not be expoitable on another. [CS] But that's not the scenario or question that was asked. Have different flavors of antivirus protection at the relay, Exchange, and at the client. [CS] I am not opposed to an SMTP relay, it's a sound idea. I don't see much value in putting one in a DMZ really, but an SMTP relay is much different than an Exchange relay which is where this thread started. Apples and Oran
RE: stupid disclaimers
Wickieup AZ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Christopher Hummert Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I figure there's that town in the southwest that has the annual rattlesnake round up. Where they capture as many rattlesnakes and then kill them. Couldn't we have something like that for lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers now youre trying to get on my good side ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that
RE: stupid disclaimers
I don't remember seeing anything in HIPAA that requires a disclaimer. (Although I did say in an earlier email, that we'd do it, too, because of HIPAA.) Actually, we'll do it but encrypt anything with PHI in it. Eric, I don't think a simple disclaimer will hold up under the due diligence part of HIPAA. Paul Chinnery Network Administrator Mem Med Ctr -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
Regarding Outlook Web Access deployments, particularly with Exchange 2000, I can see a large benefit to deploying a front end server in the DMZ which communicates to the Internet client using SSL and the backend mailbox servers over HTTP. Not only is there off-loading of the encryption processing, but it provides you a location for containing external attacks. Yes, in a sense, all servers in the DMZ are sacrificial victims. The theory is that you keep your sacrificial victims in a contained area so they can be monitored carefully and you fall back and reformat them as soon as they are compromised. Obviously you need both intrusion detection and host-based firewalling with the DMZ (to prevent compromise of the DMZ from host to host). If there were no front-end server (direct OWA access on the mailbox server) you couldn't possibly monitor it as well since it is performing many more functions. Also, you certainly couldn't scrub it easily if it were compromised. If you were running a front-end server internally (no-DMZ), if that box were compromised it could be used as a staging area for an attack on all your internal systems. So, yes, the assumption is that all machines in your DMZ will eventually be compromised and they are suspect. Okay, given my recommended configuration, the essential problem is that the front-end server has to have access to some key internal services in order to function. The trick would appear to be to lock down those internal services as much as possible and to get a really good intrusion detection system that will allow you to shutdown your front-end server access to internal services as quickly as possible. Okay, there is a cost associated with providing this type of set up. You can't run a front-end server on Exchange 2000 Standard, you'll need Enterprise. You'll need a good firewall. You'll need good virus protection, host-based firewalls, and an intrusion detection system (network defenses without intrusion detection is like a city wall with no night watch). None of this is cheap, but that's the price of using OWA on the Internet. If you don't have the money to do it securely, don't provide the service. Russell Ragar, MCSE+I, CNE, CCNA Senior Network Engineer PowerTV, Inc. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp I guess our needs here are somehwat different, perhaps. We don't use Exchange in the DMZ (that's ridiculous overkill) but we do have relays out there ... and we lock 'em down to specific ports internally as well. I disagree that it would be "just as harmful as in the DMZ", though ... perform a DoS on a box in the DMZ, you only kill communications through that one box. DoS the Exchange Server, bam -- you just lost ALL email services. [CS] What box are you using to relay OWA that wouldn't be just as secure on the internal network as it would be in a DMZ? I can have a dedicated OWA server in either location and the net impact to my Exchange org seems equivalent. As to SMTP, the same thing applies IMO. If you DoS my SMTP relay, why would the impact be any greater on my internal network than in my DMZ. Granted, we've got more systems to support, but that's the price we pay for the security and redundancy that comes with it. [CS] Your network seems more complex with no demonstrable additional value when compared to my configuration for the scenario as asked. And Chris, you asked to "demonstrate an exploit" ... we prefer to not wait for one to be demonstrated, but rather do the best we can to preemptively protect ourselves before one is found: use relays in the DMZ, and mix relay products so what exploits one may not be expoitable on another. [CS] But that's not the scenario or question that was asked. Have different flavors of antivirus protection at the relay, Exchange, and at the client. [CS] I am not opposed to an SMTP relay, it's a sound idea. I don't see much value in putting one in a DMZ really, but an SMTP relay is much different than an Exchange relay which is where this thread started. Apples and Oranges or Horses for Courses. Like I said before though, it ain't right for everybody ... it takes some bank to make it happen. Our requirements here are a little more anal than others'. [CS] It's not about money in this case. It's about the scenario as presented. Jon > -Original Message- > From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp > > > On specific ports? Sure, why not? > > I'd allow 443 to an inside box. It requires authentication > and it's encrypted. Any vulnerability in the application > itself would be just as harmful in the DMZ. > > I'd allow 25 to an inside box. The endpoint is a system that > accepts the mail and scans it for viruses and malicious
RE: Now here's a different OOF
"Who", not would. Fat fingers, dpttu. -Original Message- From: David Florea Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Now here's a different OOF Now would could have predicted this? -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:40 PM To: David Florea Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: stupid disclaimers This is a test OOF. I am really here. _ 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]
Dumb Joke Friday
An old woman came into her doctor's office and confessed to an embarrassing problem. "I fart all the time, Doctor Johnson, but they're soundless, and they have no odor. In fact, since I've been here, I've farted no less than twenty times. What can I do?" "Here's a prescription, Mrs. Harris. Take these pills three times a day for seven days and come back and see me in a week." Next week an upset Mrs. Harris marched into Dr. Johnson's office. "Doctor, I don't know what was in those pills, but the problem is worse! I'm farting just as much, but now they smell terrible! What do you have to say for yourself?" "Calm down, Mrs. Harris," said the doctor soothingly. "Now that we've fixed your sinuses, we'll work on your hearing." GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. _ 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: stupid disclaimers
Just try to organize such an event. They would bury you in permit paperwork and then sue you for: inadequate fire protection for the amount of papers lying around in one spot, structure too week to support the weight of the paper, air quality, health hazard (paper cuts), etc. This would of course be followed by several class action suits for a variety of exciting reasons. Who knows, maybe they would manage to get the Government involved -Original Message- From: David Florea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers That used to happen out around Brothers, in Eastern Oregon. I think though that they may have had to phase that out due to the PETA folks. Note, I don't think there is a similar protective organization for lawyers... -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I figure there's that town in the southwest that has the annual rattlesnake round up. Where they capture as many rattlesnakes and then kill them. Couldn't we have something like that for lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers now youre trying to get on my good side ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ma
Now here's a different OOF
Now would could have predicted this? -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:40 PM To: David Florea Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: stupid disclaimers This is a test OOF. I am really here. _ 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: stupid disclaimers
We are going to start putting disclaimers on emails because HIPPA and government told us too if we want to stay in business. :\ -Original Message- From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. _ 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: stupid disclaimers
That used to happen out around Brothers, in Eastern Oregon. I think though that they may have had to phase that out due to the PETA folks. Note, I don't think there is a similar protective organization for lawyers... -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I figure there's that town in the southwest that has the annual rattlesnake round up. Where they capture as many rattlesnakes and then kill them. Couldn't we have something like that for lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers now youre trying to get on my good side ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of u
RE: stupid disclaimers
I figure there's that town in the southwest that has the annual rattlesnake round up. Where they capture as many rattlesnakes and then kill them. Couldn't we have something like that for lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mellott, Bill Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers now youre trying to get on my good side ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To:
RE: RUS and Move Mailbox
well, I'm not sure this is what you are asking for, but I'll put it out. I have a perl script that uses a C exe file to move a mailbox from one DB or server to another... I note that your last line is 'Or at least in the same domain'... I know this script works within my domain, but I can't really test it crossing a domain runs on win32. You're welcome to take a look at it if you are interested. jeff e. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RUS and Move Mailbox That may be scriptable through CDOEXM, but I kind of doubt it. I was never able to find a way to reconnect a mailbox either. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Quentin Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RUS and Move Mailbox I am accessing Exchange properties via LDAP. When I create the attributes homeMDB, homeMTA, msExchHomeServerName and mailNickname, RUS successfully creates my mailbox. Now, I wonder if it is possible to MOVE my mailboxes as well. Only changing the values via LDAP will not do. Does any body know a way to move a mailbox (from a remote machine) using LDAP for example? CDOEX(M) API only seem to run locally... Or at least in the same domain. _ 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: stupid disclaimers
Unless things have changed, a "C", or even "(C)" (which is very popular) is NOT sufficient to explicitly show copyright. It has to be either the whole word "Copyright" or the funky little "c" inside the circle, followed by the year. However, the Berne convention (to which the US signed up a few years back) basically says that EVERY copyrightable work is automatically copyright upon creation. Hmmm, that seems to have some interesting implications for email... For those of you who are curious or with problems sleeping: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is patte
Migration Wizard
I am using the migration wizard to move a mailbox from my 5.5 exchange server on win2k to my Exch2k server. It seems to be taking forever. Looking at the 5.5 exchange administrator program the mailbox shows 62000 items but the wizard is saying that it has exported more than that and it is still chugging along. There are no errors or warnings in the wizard or the event viewer. Can someone in here give me a clue? _ 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: stupid disclaimers
now youre trying to get on my good side ;-) bill -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, Jun
RE: stupid disclaimers
That "C" in "C2002" had a circle around it when I composed this message. Since the list munges characters, it should instead read: (C)2002 Ed Crowley Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange
RE: stupid disclaimers
Wouldn't the easiest solution to all of this be killing all lawyers? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Te
RE: stupid disclaimers
Also, I could simply claim that I am not bound by contracts which I did not sign. Copyrights (note the spelling) are enforceable by law. You could, I imagine, copyright an e-mail, but you I don't think that I have ever seen a disclaimer that has the line: C2002 Ed Crowley or the like, which is all that is technically required to apply a copyright to a publication (as I understand it but I am not an attorney). So the issue is not copyright. By receiving an item by e-mail I do not submit to being bound to any contractural agreement, just like I am not bound by any contractural agreement associated with every single piece of postal junk mail I receive. As far as I am aware, no law says that I am. So, in your judgment (you aren't a lawyer either, are you?) should I reply to every piece of e-mail that has a disclaimer with a message of my own notifying said correspondent that I am not bound by the legalese of their disclaimer? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid d
RE: stupid disclaimers
If you were an attorney and presented that logic to me, it would just tell me that corporate lawyers spend way too much time trying to minimize risks that are minimal to start with. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Do you think her data was right? I tend to think that the law of bailments applies to all e-mail and probably trumps other legal arguments. I don't think you can become a bailee by force of someone else's actions. I am not aware of this case having been made in court yet, but it is sitting there waiting for the first lawyer that needs it to grab it and go. Also, disclaimers can be used against the one doing the disclaiming, as they might in some circumstances provide prima fascia evidence that the person doing the disclaiming was perfectly aware of the risks being assumed, and is thus in no position to claim an exemption from responsibility. Let's say I send you a note that is in effect an invitation to join a pyramid scheme. Then at
RE: RUS and Move Mailbox
That may be scriptable through CDOEXM, but I kind of doubt it. I was never able to find a way to reconnect a mailbox either. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Quentin Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RUS and Move Mailbox I am accessing Exchange properties via LDAP. When I create the attributes homeMDB, homeMTA, msExchHomeServerName and mailNickname, RUS successfully creates my mailbox. Now, I wonder if it is possible to MOVE my mailboxes as well. Only changing the values via LDAP will not do. Does any body know a way to move a mailbox (from a remote machine) using LDAP for example? CDOEX(M) API only seem to run locally... Or at least in the same domain. _ 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: Catch all email sent to my company address
Found this on the archives... Does this work ? I'm running Exchange 5.5 Create a mail-enabled user with the SMTP address SMTP-CatchAll-SYS-E2KMS@.com and grant yourself rights to view its contents. That's all you need to do. S. PS: For a useful answer, read the archives. -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address Search the archives for "catch-all mailbox" Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Catch all email sent to my company address How can I forward all email sent to non-existent mailboxes in my domain e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , to a particular mailbox. So all email sent to non-existent personnel in the mycompany.com domain should be sent to this mailbox _ 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: Catch all email sent to my company address
I'm looking for both. -Original Message- From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address you are looking for: a. was here once but is no more or b. any e-mail address for your domain that is not defined elsewhere to go there? -Original Message- From: Brett Wesoloski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address There is an option on where to send all incoming email inside the exchange console. You tell it whom to forward all mail to. Can't seem to think of the exact screen right now. -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Catch all email sent to my company address How can I forward all email sent to non-existent mailboxes in my domain e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , to a particular mailbox. So all email sent to non-existent personnel in the mycompany.com domain should be sent to this mailbox _ 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: stupid disclaimers
I wasn't clear..sorry palm pilot has taken up two days because I cant get it to sync..and I'm way beyond being frustrated bye it.. But to clarify. Adding a disclaimer to an e-mail is like adding a citation to item under copywrite. You show, very plainly, that you understand the sensitivity of the information and because you have to manually enter the e-mail address you show that you are aware of who you send it to. To add to that you can go into contract law and pull out court cases that argue wither online "click Ok to agree" type of contracts are not legal. You only need to argue that if digital contracts are not always legal, how can you claim that a disclaimer that is placed on the end of an e-mail (and you can argue that as a standard practice that you stop reading the e-mail if you get to one) can some how hold a legal suit against you. They can't, because disclaimer are not law (where being ignorant of law does not protect you from punishment) you cannot legal enter a contract (such as is implied with a disclaimer) without some proof of knowledge of it. So, if you add the disclaimer to your e-mail, you are stating, "Yea, I _know_ that this is sensitive stuff but if I send it out no one can use it in anyway or I can sue them." I'm not sure, but I bet a good lawyer could use that type of angle to destroy all legal ramifications that would favor a disclaimer. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Do you think her data was right? I tend to think that the law of bailments applies to all e-mail and probably trumps other legal arguments. I don't think you can become a bailee by force of someone else's actions. I am not aware of this case having been made in court yet, but it is sitting there waiting for the first lawyer that needs it to grab it and go. Also, disclaimers can be used against the one doing the disclaiming, as they might in some circumstances provide prima fascia evidence that the person doing the disclaiming was perfectly aware of the risks being assumed, and is thus in no position to claim an exemption from responsibility. Let's say I send you a note that is in effect an invitation to join a pyramid scheme. Then at the bottom I add a disclaimer that says the invitation is void if it is legally found to be a pyramid scheme. Can I play dumb or somehow exempt because of my disclaimer? I don't think so. In fact, I think the disclaimer is tantamount to a confession. -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Not casting aspersions, and it may already be known to the list, but Elizabet
RE: Searching the archives
It's all about the archives... and flunky- " The server just went south and so did the internet connection! How we going to research this?" me- [2] "Like this." [1] Now. [2] On or about July 3rd, that's when Aaron(sp?) says to expect the latest and greatest ArchiveCD. Technically we'd have to lose three servers for me to lose my replicas going back to Q1 1999, but wtf. I could burn my own CD, but wtf again. I didn't ask for Lisa, because Aaron was so nice :) Paul -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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: Moving SMTP events
Roger thanks. On a side note is this something a syslog server could handle? We plan to implement one shortly. e- -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving SMTP events You need to have a system in place to collect those traps (like HP OpenView, TNG Unicenter, etc) but that's definitely not something for the light of heart, and it costs some serious bank to do correctly. If you don't have a system in place, I doubt this is the right reason to move forward on one. I recommend just doing a quick search for some good Event Log tools. > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving SMTP events > > > Man I REALLY need to learn some programming/scripting. > > Care to expand on this trap thing? Id really like to pin > these manipulative users up against the wall when they pull > crap like this. > > Thanks > e- > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving SMTP events > > If it were me, I'd write a quick perl script or something > that polls for only the stuff you want and sticks them in > your own log dump area, be it a flatfile or database > somewhere (there's also a gazillion tools that are already > written out there that will do the same thing, but for cost.) > There's other options too ... if you've got some sort of SMTP > infrastructure in place you could configure the server to > send traps for just the events you want. > > Jon > > > -Original Message- > > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:44 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Moving SMTP events > > > > > > Hi > > > > Exch 5.5 sp54 > > Win2k sp2 > > > > I am wondering if there is a way to move the diagnostic > > logging events for IMS to a custom event viewer or preferably > > the security log. Here is why. > > > > I have a group of high paid *ahem* users that receive email > > from potential clients, sometimes these users will start a > > big problem with management claiming that certain people cant > > email them and we are losing TONS of money because of it. In > > a recent situation one of these users claimed this but it > > turned out the user didn't check their email for 15 days. > > > > All of these users are pop/smtp, so I would like a way to log > > their logon/logoff events but there is a catch. They logon > > to a invisible SMTP that sits on the mailbox server so the > > logon/logoff auditing gets mingled in with the other 1400 > > users and the security log that is currently 10 meg only > > stores for a few days. Id really like to only log > > logon/logoff events for pop3/smtp and not normal mail clients. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Thanks > > e- > > > > _ > > 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: Moving SMTP events
You need to have a system in place to collect those traps (like HP OpenView, TNG Unicenter, etc) but that's definitely not something for the light of heart, and it costs some serious bank to do correctly. If you don't have a system in place, I doubt this is the right reason to move forward on one. I recommend just doing a quick search for some good Event Log tools. > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:00 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving SMTP events > > > Man I REALLY need to learn some programming/scripting. > > Care to expand on this trap thing? Id really like to pin > these manipulative users up against the wall when they pull > crap like this. > > Thanks > e- > > -Original Message- > From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving SMTP events > > If it were me, I'd write a quick perl script or something > that polls for only the stuff you want and sticks them in > your own log dump area, be it a flatfile or database > somewhere (there's also a gazillion tools that are already > written out there that will do the same thing, but for cost.) > There's other options too ... if you've got some sort of SMTP > infrastructure in place you could configure the server to > send traps for just the events you want. > > Jon > > > -Original Message- > > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:44 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Moving SMTP events > > > > > > Hi > > > > Exch 5.5 sp54 > > Win2k sp2 > > > > I am wondering if there is a way to move the diagnostic > > logging events for IMS to a custom event viewer or preferably > > the security log. Here is why. > > > > I have a group of high paid *ahem* users that receive email > > from potential clients, sometimes these users will start a > > big problem with management claiming that certain people cant > > email them and we are losing TONS of money because of it. In > > a recent situation one of these users claimed this but it > > turned out the user didn't check their email for 15 days. > > > > All of these users are pop/smtp, so I would like a way to log > > their logon/logoff events but there is a catch. They logon > > to a invisible SMTP that sits on the mailbox server so the > > logon/logoff auditing gets mingled in with the other 1400 > > users and the security log that is currently 10 meg only > > stores for a few days. Id really like to only log > > logon/logoff events for pop3/smtp and not normal mail clients. > > > > Any ideas? > > > > Thanks > > e- > > > > _ > > 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: Searching the archives
Cool, thanks Jim > -Original Message- > From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:06 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > Go to http://www.mail-archive.com/ and search for "Exchange". > An archive for this list will pop up. You can search it real easily. > > Rob > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:56 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > With most other listservs I can go to a search engine > specifically for that list and search through all the posts. > The winnt list is that way. What are servers that host > listservs for? And why generate multiple local copies of a > resource that should be shared? > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:49 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment > the CD with > > your current posts. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > James Liddil > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? > > You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be > out of date > > instantly. > > > > Jim > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > > > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Searching the archives > > > > > > > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > > > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > > help me out > > > here? I go to the site search and never am able to > search only the > > > listserv archives. > > > > > > 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] > > _ > 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: Searching the archives
Go to http://www.mail-archive.com/ and search for "Exchange". An archive for this list will pop up. You can search it real easily. Rob -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives With most other listservs I can go to a search engine specifically for that list and search through all the posts. The winnt list is that way. What are servers that host listservs for? And why generate multiple local copies of a resource that should be shared? Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment the > CD with your current posts. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ > response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going > to be out of date instantly. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Searching the archives > > > > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out > > here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the > > listserv archives. > > > > 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] _ 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: Moving SMTP events
Man I REALLY need to learn some programming/scripting. Care to expand on this trap thing? Id really like to pin these manipulative users up against the wall when they pull crap like this. Thanks e- -Original Message- From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Moving SMTP events If it were me, I'd write a quick perl script or something that polls for only the stuff you want and sticks them in your own log dump area, be it a flatfile or database somewhere (there's also a gazillion tools that are already written out there that will do the same thing, but for cost.) There's other options too ... if you've got some sort of SMTP infrastructure in place you could configure the server to send traps for just the events you want. Jon > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:44 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Moving SMTP events > > > Hi > > Exch 5.5 sp54 > Win2k sp2 > > I am wondering if there is a way to move the diagnostic > logging events for IMS to a custom event viewer or preferably > the security log. Here is why. > > I have a group of high paid *ahem* users that receive email > from potential clients, sometimes these users will start a > big problem with management claiming that certain people cant > email them and we are losing TONS of money because of it. In > a recent situation one of these users claimed this but it > turned out the user didn't check their email for 15 days. > > All of these users are pop/smtp, so I would like a way to log > their logon/logoff events but there is a catch. They logon > to a invisible SMTP that sits on the mailbox server so the > logon/logoff auditing gets mingled in with the other 1400 > users and the security log that is currently 10 meg only > stores for a few days. Id really like to only log > logon/logoff events for pop3/smtp and not normal mail clients. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks > e- > > _ > 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]
RUS and Move Mailbox
I am accessing Exchange properties via LDAP. When I create the attributes homeMDB, homeMTA, msExchHomeServerName and mailNickname, RUS successfully creates my mailbox. Now, I wonder if it is possible to MOVE my mailboxes as well. Only changing the values via LDAP will not do. Does any body know a way to move a mailbox (from a remote machine) using LDAP for example? CDOEX(M) API only seem to run locally... Or at least in the same domain. _ 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: Searching the archives
With most other listservs I can go to a search engine specifically for that list and search through all the posts. The winnt list is that way. What are servers that host listservs for? And why generate multiple local copies of a resource that should be shared? Jim > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment the > CD with your current posts. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ > response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going > to be out of date instantly. > > Jim > > > -Original Message- > > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Searching the archives > > > > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out > > here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the > > listserv archives. > > > > 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: Moving SMTP events
If it were me, I'd write a quick perl script or something that polls for only the stuff you want and sticks them in your own log dump area, be it a flatfile or database somewhere (there's also a gazillion tools that are already written out there that will do the same thing, but for cost.) There's other options too ... if you've got some sort of SMTP infrastructure in place you could configure the server to send traps for just the events you want. Jon > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:44 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Moving SMTP events > > > Hi > > Exch 5.5 sp54 > Win2k sp2 > > I am wondering if there is a way to move the diagnostic > logging events for IMS to a custom event viewer or preferably > the security log. Here is why. > > I have a group of high paid *ahem* users that receive email > from potential clients, sometimes these users will start a > big problem with management claiming that certain people cant > email them and we are losing TONS of money because of it. In > a recent situation one of these users claimed this but it > turned out the user didn't check their email for 15 days. > > All of these users are pop/smtp, so I would like a way to log > their logon/logoff events but there is a catch. They logon > to a invisible SMTP that sits on the mailbox server so the > logon/logoff auditing gets mingled in with the other 1400 > users and the security log that is currently 10 meg only > stores for a few days. Id really like to only log > logon/logoff events for pop3/smtp and not normal mail clients. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks > e- > > _ > 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: stupid disclaimers
I hereby claim or disclaim that I am stupid. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Do you think her data was right? I tend to think that the law of bailments applies to all e-mail and probably trumps other legal arguments. I don't think you can become a bailee by force of someone else's actions. I am not aware of this case having been made in court yet, but it is sitting there waiting for the first lawyer that needs it to grab it and go. Also, disclaimers can be used against the one doing the disclaiming, as they might in some circumstances provide prima fascia evidence that the person doing the disclaiming was perfectly aware of the risks being assumed, and is thus in no position to claim an exemption from responsibility. Let's say I send you a note that is in effect an invitation to join a pyramid scheme. Then at the bottom I add a disclaimer that says the invitation is void if it is legally found to be a pyramid scheme. Can I play dumb or somehow exempt because of my disclaimer? I don't think so. In fact, I think the disclaimer is tantamount to a confession. -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Not casting aspersions, and it may already be known to the list, but Elizabeth should probably have disclaimered (sorry ) her message with a comment about Clearswift's involvement with MIMEsweeper. Gary -Original Message- From: Elizabeth Farrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 16:41 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers http://www.emaildisclaimers.com/ "There are several reasons why you might decide to add disclaimers to your e-mails. The reasons can be categorized into two groups: legal and marketing reasons. 1. Legal reasons If you were to be so unlucky to be sued for the contents of an e-mail, it is not certain whether an email disclaimer will protect you from liability in a court of law. However, it will certainly help your case and in some situations might exempt you from liability. More importantly, it may well prevent the actual occurrence of lawsuits against your company since the mere presence of the statement might deter most persons from seeking legal compensation from your company. Therefore the use of disclaimers is always recommended. There are 6 legal threats that disclaimers can help protect against: Breach of confidentiality: By including a disclaimer that warns that the content of the e-mail is confidential, you can protect your company against the exposure of confidential information. If the receiver breaches this confidentiali
RE: Searching the archives
Duh! That's sort of the nature of archives. You augment the CD with your current posts. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Liddil Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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]
Moving SMTP events
Hi Exch 5.5 sp54 Win2k sp2 I am wondering if there is a way to move the diagnostic logging events for IMS to a custom event viewer or preferably the security log. Here is why. I have a group of high paid *ahem* users that receive email from potential clients, sometimes these users will start a big problem with management claiming that certain people cant email them and we are losing TONS of money because of it. In a recent situation one of these users claimed this but it turned out the user didn't check their email for 15 days. All of these users are pop/smtp, so I would like a way to log their logon/logoff events but there is a catch. They logon to a invisible SMTP that sits on the mailbox server so the logon/logoff auditing gets mingled in with the other 1400 users and the security log that is currently 10 meg only stores for a few days. Id really like to only log logon/logoff events for pop3/smtp and not normal mail clients. Any ideas? Thanks e- _ 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: Searching the archives
Not necessarily. I've searched for things like event IDs before, and found them in archives. Some things aren't out of date straight away. Neil -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 07 June 2002 17:42 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: Searching the archives Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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] * This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands, or any of its subsidiary companies. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202-360360 or email [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: Searching the archives
don't shoot the messenger. If I was serious I would not put a smiley face at the end. Friday again?? Where's the Haiku? -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching the archives OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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: It's OT time
Beyond "carnivore" Tyson's origin has yet to be established -- Lewis *might* end up looking like Gumby! -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Now all we need is for Lewis to whack Tyson! (Lewis *is* British, isn't he?) ;-) Neil -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 07 June 2002 16:26 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: It's OT time Subject: RE: It's OT time Yeah we won the last one of those too, not a bad week for old blighty! Paul -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 16:00 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Stop that, or I'll tie you to a chair and force you to watch Test Match cricket... :-) Neil -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 07 June 2002 15:57 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: It's OT time Subject: RE: It's OT time Most FIFA matches seem like a lifetime. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bendall, Paul Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Good it was but that last ten minutes seemed like a lifetime Paul -Original Message- From: Louis Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:39 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time .Damn good! Regards Mr Louis Joyce Data Support Specialist BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Hey! Some of us are watching those from tape, so don't spoil it! That said, the score for England vs Argentina was Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: It's OT time Sweden 2 - Nigeria 1 12.30pm (GMT) England v Argentina C'MON ENGLAND! _ 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: Searching the archives
OK is this a "Its Friday and you are not reading the FAQ response? You guys can't be serious? Buy a CD that is going to be out of date instantly. Jim > -Original Message- > From: Setmajer, Jerzy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:36 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Searching the archives > > > typical response for that is "buy the cd" > Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) > > -Original Message- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Searching the archives > > > I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com > specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone > help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able > to search only the listserv archives. > > 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: Searching the archives
Or subscribe a public folder to the list and build your own. With E2k full-text indexing, searching is fairly reasonable, too. Neil -Original Message- From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 07 June 2002 17:32 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: Searching the archives Subject: RE: Searching the archives It was suggested to me to order them on CD Swynk archives: copy on CD 512.322.0071, ask for Lisa. Dave -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Searching the archives I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the listserv archives. 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] * This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands, or any of its subsidiary companies. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202-360360 or email [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: "Bad Media"
-Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:59 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: "Bad Media" We are also running 3878. Here is an event we get in the system log (A parity error was detected on \Device\Scsi\adpu160m2.) We replaced the 39160 SCSI card and also loaded a new driver provided by ADIC. Server room is quite cool. I currently have a case open with Veritas so we'll see what happens from there. I'll let all you BE users know the outcome. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: "Bad Media" Hi Mike Boy, do you bring back some BAD memories for me. Look at this - with BE 8.6, what revision are you running? When I upgraded to 3878, some of my problem disappeared. Also, look at the tapes in question in BE - are you recording allot of hard errors or soft errors? Another thing you might want to look at is the temperature of the room. I know if my AC goes out (only happened twice in three years) and the temp rises a bit, this will affect the performance of my tapes. My problems were related to both my version of BE and Exabyte. Hope this points you in the right direction Russell -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: "Bad Media" Has anyone seen Backup Exec 8.6 label their media as "Bad Media". They are brand new LTO tapes in a brand new Adic Scalar 100. I called ADIC and they said that they have seen Veritas do this. ADIC told me to delete the devices and add them again. I did and it is working, but it will eventually do it again. Just wondering if anyone has seen any patches or heard of any fixes. No such thing on Veritas's support page. Thanks. _ 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: Searching the archives
typical response for that is "buy the cd" Oh yes - this information is also in archives :=) -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Searching the archives I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the listserv archives. 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: Delgating access to domain admins in exchange 2000
To quote the resource kit (or Technet somewhere) regarding Admin groups... "Windows 2000 sets the value of "Allow inheritable permissions from the parent to propagate to this object" to FALSE to avoid security issues stemming from elevation of privilege attacks. For example, if Group X is made a member of the Administrators group and someone left Access Control Lists (ACLs) on Group X such that Group Y can modify the group, members of Group Y could make themselves a member of Group X and transitively become a member of the Administrators group." -Original Message- From: Michael Semiglia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 June 2002 21:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Delgating access to domain admins in exchange 2000 Hi all, I am trying to allow the account operators group to manage exchange 2000 user objects in the domain admins group. I have it working for all the other users. Some of the issues I am having is that the account operators group can modify the exchange specific attributes due to the fact that they are also exchange administrators in system manager, however, anyone in the domain admin groups is greyed out. This stops them from creating a mailbox, changing the display name, deleting the mailbox and removing the exchange attributes. I tried delgating the users container in the AD, however, the permission inheritance seems to be blocked on the domain admins group object. If anyone has any ideas that would be great. _ 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] This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system, do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _ 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: Searching the archives
It was suggested to me to order them on CD Swynk archives: copy on CD 512.322.0071, ask for Lisa. Dave -Original Message- From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Searching the archives I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the listserv archives. 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: Exchange Hardware Requirements
Thanks Hunter and Ed for all the insight it's greatly appreciated. -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 12:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Some other useful background information that may help for sizing/configuring a new box: http://www.exchangeadmin.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20367 Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Just hardware and win2k advanced server without implementing AD Any other applications running on the box? No other applications (current box is PDC and WINS but new one will only be Exchange) Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? Currently we have some extreme slowdowns throughout the day at random times. We have been working with Microsoft tech support to try and get it fixed for a while, but without success. Our current server is maxed out at a gig of ram, has a dual port NIC and a RAID 5 array that hosts the OS, stores, and logs (bad, I know) . How hard do the users hit the box? Majority of our users fall into the MMB2 medium category, but we also have a fair number of heavy users. Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Auto emails are to external addresses Thanks in Advance for all your help. -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Hardware? OS? Exchange? Any other applications running on the box? Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? How hard do the users hit the box? Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Do you have an SMTP gateway or relay host? Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Hardware Requirements We're about to upgrade the server we're running Exchange 5.5 on. I have read that the recommended disk configuration is a mirrored set for the operating system and logs and a RAID 5 array for the stores. Also I've looked around on Microsoft's site for hardware and configuration recommendations but anything that I've found seems incredibly inadequate. I was wondering if anyone has any better information on this. We have about 300 mailboxes and included in that are 100 mobile users who synchronize during the day. We also have auto emailing PC's that churn out about 1500 emails a day. _ 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]
Searching the archives
I have never been able to search the archives at swynk.com specifically for discussions from this list. Can someone help me out here? I go to the site search and never am able to search only the listserv archives. 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]
RE: Catch all email sent to my company address
It had better spelling and grammar though. Be fair... :) JDE -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Catch all email sent to my company address It is terse and incomplete, yes. Unfortunately, it's also inaccurate. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address I was trying to be as descriptive as the original poster was in asking his question. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address Go find it and report back. Until then, we are all to assume that it isn't there. And don't tell me about the one in Exchange 2000 because it doesn't work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address There is an option on where to send all incoming email inside the exchange console. You tell it whom to forward all mail to. Can't seem to think of the exact screen right now. -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Catch all email sent to my company address How can I forward all email sent to non-existent mailboxes in my domain e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , to a particular mailbox. So all email sent to non-existent personnel in the mycompany.com domain should be sent to this mailbox _ 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] _ 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: stupid disclaimers
It probably doesn't. DISCLAIMER: If this is wrong, I didn't mean it. If it is right, well then of course I did. If it relates, I didn't link it. If id doesn't relate, I didn't write it; it was obviously sent by someone else through an impersonation service. So I'm me when it is convenient to be me, but I never me if it isn't. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers I don't understand how this relates to disclaimers one way or another. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Carerros Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers If you get a lawyer out of the office and talking like a human being, (I did this once) you get really interesting information. Like one told me once that if you create a website with all "borrowed" copywrited materials you should NEVER site the source of the materials in thinking that if you site the source all obligations go away. What you are really doing is giving the lawyer half of what he needs to prosecute you. (Fair use and copyright is based on knowledge of use and then the extent that the use effects the market, in a nutshell that's it). So if you steal something or want to make a lawyer work you DON'T put a disclaimer on it, that way your foreign ignorance and thus bypass the law. Not that I would ever suggestion such a thing. -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Hmmm. Maybe the SPAM-filter people have it all wrong, and what they should really be doing is pattern-matching on variations of "this is not an unsolicited e-mail" Opting-In on some exciting offers for herbal viagra in Pittsburgh Jim Helfer -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Just like the disclaimer that comes on 50% of the Spam I get that says that "this is not an unsolicited e-mail". Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Do you think her data was right? I tend to think that the law of bailments applies to all e-mail and probably trumps other legal arguments. I don't think you can become a bailee by force of someone else's actions. I am not aware of this case having been made in court yet, but it is sitting there waiting for the first lawyer that needs it to grab it and go. Also, disclaimers can be used against the one doing the disclaiming, as they might in some circumstances provide prima fascia evidence that the person doing the disclaiming was perfectly aware of the risks being assumed, and is thus in no position to claim an exemption from responsibility. Let's say I send you a note that is in effect an invitation to join a pyramid scheme. Then at the bottom I add a disclaimer that says the invitation is void if it is legally found to be a pyramid scheme. Can I play dumb or somehow exempt because of my disclaimer? I don't think so. In fact, I think the disclaimer is tantamount to a confession. -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers Not casting aspersions, and it may already be known to the list, but Elizabeth should probably have disclaimered (sorry ) her message with a comment about Clearswift's involvement with MIMEsweeper. Gary -Original Message- From: Elizabeth Farrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 16:41 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: stupid disclaimers http://www.emaildisclaimers.com/ "There are several reasons why you might decide to add disclaimers to your e-mails. The reasons can be categorized into two groups: legal and marketing reasons. 1. Legal reasons If you were to be so unlucky to be sued for the contents of an e-mail, it is not certain whether an email disclaimer will protect you from liability in a court of law. However, it will certainly help your case and in some situations might exempt you from liability. More importantly, it may well prevent the actual occurrence of lawsuits against your company since the mere presence of the statement might deter most persons from seeking legal compensation from your company. Therefore the use of disclaimers is always recommended. There are 6 leg
RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements
Some other useful background information that may help for sizing/configuring a new box: http://www.exchangeadmin.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20367 Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Just hardware and win2k advanced server without implementing AD Any other applications running on the box? No other applications (current box is PDC and WINS but new one will only be Exchange) Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? Currently we have some extreme slowdowns throughout the day at random times. We have been working with Microsoft tech support to try and get it fixed for a while, but without success. Our current server is maxed out at a gig of ram, has a dual port NIC and a RAID 5 array that hosts the OS, stores, and logs (bad, I know) . How hard do the users hit the box? Majority of our users fall into the MMB2 medium category, but we also have a fair number of heavy users. Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Auto emails are to external addresses Thanks in Advance for all your help. -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Hardware? OS? Exchange? Any other applications running on the box? Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? How hard do the users hit the box? Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Do you have an SMTP gateway or relay host? Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Hardware Requirements We're about to upgrade the server we're running Exchange 5.5 on. I have read that the recommended disk configuration is a mirrored set for the operating system and logs and a RAID 5 array for the stores. Also I've looked around on Microsoft's site for hardware and configuration recommendations but anything that I've found seems incredibly inadequate. I was wondering if anyone has any better information on this. We have about 300 mailboxes and included in that are 100 mobile users who synchronize during the day. We also have auto emailing PC's that churn out about 1500 emails a day. _ 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: Exchange Hardware Requirements
http://activeanswers.compaq.com/ActiveAnswers/Render/1,1027,2366-6-100-225-1 ,00.htm (url may wrap) has links to a couple of sizer tools. Note that if you can identify the cause of your slowdowns, you may need to adjust particular recommendations of the sizer tool. Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Just hardware and win2k advanced server without implementing AD Any other applications running on the box? No other applications (current box is PDC and WINS but new one will only be Exchange) Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? Currently we have some extreme slowdowns throughout the day at random times. We have been working with Microsoft tech support to try and get it fixed for a while, but without success. Our current server is maxed out at a gig of ram, has a dual port NIC and a RAID 5 array that hosts the OS, stores, and logs (bad, I know) . How hard do the users hit the box? Majority of our users fall into the MMB2 medium category, but we also have a fair number of heavy users. Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Auto emails are to external addresses Thanks in Advance for all your help. -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Hardware? OS? Exchange? Any other applications running on the box? Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? How hard do the users hit the box? Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Do you have an SMTP gateway or relay host? Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Hardware Requirements We're about to upgrade the server we're running Exchange 5.5 on. I have read that the recommended disk configuration is a mirrored set for the operating system and logs and a RAID 5 array for the stores. Also I've looked around on Microsoft's site for hardware and configuration recommendations but anything that I've found seems incredibly inadequate. I was wondering if anyone has any better information on this. We have about 300 mailboxes and included in that are 100 mobile users who synchronize during the day. We also have auto emailing PC's that churn out about 1500 emails a day. _ 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]
Spellchecker for OWA
Recently got an email regarding this product. www.spellchecker.com Downloaded the sample software and it seemed to work pretty well in my lab. Since the company has been around since 1993 I don't know if this is new stuff or not. Is anyone here using it and what impact have you seen on IIS. _ 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: Catch all email sent to my company address
It is terse and incomplete, yes. Unfortunately, it's also inaccurate. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address I was trying to be as descriptive as the original poster was in asking his question. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address Go find it and report back. Until then, we are all to assume that it isn't there. And don't tell me about the one in Exchange 2000 because it doesn't work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address There is an option on where to send all incoming email inside the exchange console. You tell it whom to forward all mail to. Can't seem to think of the exact screen right now. -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Catch all email sent to my company address How can I forward all email sent to non-existent mailboxes in my domain e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , to a particular mailbox. So all email sent to non-existent personnel in the mycompany.com domain should be sent to this mailbox _ 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: Exchange Hardware Requirements
Upgrade in what respect? Just hardware and win2k advanced server without implementing AD Any other applications running on the box? No other applications (current box is PDC and WINS but new one will only be Exchange) Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? Currently we have some extreme slowdowns throughout the day at random times. We have been working with Microsoft tech support to try and get it fixed for a while, but without success. Our current server is maxed out at a gig of ram, has a dual port NIC and a RAID 5 array that hosts the OS, stores, and logs (bad, I know) . How hard do the users hit the box? Majority of our users fall into the MMB2 medium category, but we also have a fair number of heavy users. Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Auto emails are to external addresses Thanks in Advance for all your help. -Original Message- From: Coleman, Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange Hardware Requirements Upgrade in what respect? Hardware? OS? Exchange? Any other applications running on the box? Any bottlenecks with your current setup (processor, memory, disk, network...)? How hard do the users hit the box? Are the auto-emails for internal addresses or external addresses? Do you have an SMTP gateway or relay host? Hunter -Original Message- From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Exchange Hardware Requirements We're about to upgrade the server we're running Exchange 5.5 on. I have read that the recommended disk configuration is a mirrored set for the operating system and logs and a RAID 5 array for the stores. Also I've looked around on Microsoft's site for hardware and configuration recommendations but anything that I've found seems incredibly inadequate. I was wondering if anyone has any better information on this. We have about 300 mailboxes and included in that are 100 mobile users who synchronize during the day. We also have auto emailing PC's that churn out about 1500 emails a day. _ 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: Catch all email sent to my company address
I was trying to be as descriptive as the original poster was in asking his question. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 10:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address Go find it and report back. Until then, we are all to assume that it isn't there. And don't tell me about the one in Exchange 2000 because it doesn't work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address There is an option on where to send all incoming email inside the exchange console. You tell it whom to forward all mail to. Can't seem to think of the exact screen right now. -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Catch all email sent to my company address How can I forward all email sent to non-existent mailboxes in my domain e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , to a particular mailbox. So all email sent to non-existent personnel in the mycompany.com domain should be sent to this mailbox _ 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: slightly OT - Outlook and IE
I'll sell you 5,000 Hotmail addresses for $29.95 too. In fact, I can generate 5,000 common Hotmail addresses with a simple VB Script. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Richard Serafin Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 8:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: slightly OT - Outlook and IE Yup, I've bought some myself just because I didn't believe it, I had to try it, 5000 Hotmail address like $29.95 > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: slightly OT - Outlook and IE > > >Hotmail sells your address to them. > > Really. Yes, that must be it. > > _ > 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: It's OT time
Now all we need is for Lewis to whack Tyson! (Lewis *is* British, isn't he?) ;-) Neil -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 07 June 2002 16:26 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: It's OT time Subject: RE: It's OT time Yeah we won the last one of those too, not a bad week for old blighty! Paul -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 16:00 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Stop that, or I'll tie you to a chair and force you to watch Test Match cricket... :-) Neil -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 07 June 2002 15:57 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: It's OT time Subject: RE: It's OT time Most FIFA matches seem like a lifetime. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bendall, Paul Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Good it was but that last ten minutes seemed like a lifetime Paul -Original Message- From: Louis Joyce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:39 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time .Damn good! Regards Mr Louis Joyce Data Support Specialist BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 June 2002 15:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: It's OT time Hey! Some of us are watching those from tape, so don't spoil it! That said, the score for England vs Argentina was Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Myles, Damian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 5:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: It's OT time Sweden 2 - Nigeria 1 12.30pm (GMT) England v Argentina C'MON ENGLAND! _ 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] -- If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. -- _ 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] * This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands, or any of its subsidiary companies. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202-360360 or email [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] -- If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. -- _
RE: Catch all email sent to my company address
Go find it and report back. Until then, we are all to assume that it isn't there. And don't tell me about the one in Exchange 2000 because it doesn't work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Brett Wesoloski Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Catch all email sent to my company address There is an option on where to send all incoming email inside the exchange console. You tell it whom to forward all mail to. Can't seem to think of the exact screen right now. -Original Message- From: RBHATIA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Catch all email sent to my company address How can I forward all email sent to non-existent mailboxes in my domain e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , to a particular mailbox. So all email sent to non-existent personnel in the mycompany.com domain should be sent to this mailbox _ 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]
