RE: Exchange 2000 Mailbox Limits
The SMTP Virtual Server has NO Limits set (Or has what ever the defaults in Exchange are) Ie the check boxes "Limit Message Size" and "Limit Session Size" Are NOT Set. Thanks Steve _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
We use McAfee for the desktop/server file coverage, and yes ePO does make the firewall/anti-virus control so much easier. But for Exchange, Trend is our favorite no problems since I've been here unlike some of our sister divisions who have had fun with Groupshield :-). Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 October 2002 21:40 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe not because it is great, but the fact that it gives you the ability to use the Blackstone list - which has protected us from every virus that has come up lately. I love Epolicy and would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical control of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week and every outbreak. -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Here is a MS KB article on it: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; -Mike -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help with a problem, they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next guy that came on the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We had tons of problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we slow coming when compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. We are running Symantec no, no problems. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and never had any problems. We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as well as installing the management console (they call it e-policy orchestrator nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider switching... -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart from constantly trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Or not... -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Or Symantec... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 or GFI? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 How about Sybari or Trend? -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 HA! I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only choice right now until I can get NAV implemented. > -- > From: Andy David > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > Ah! > Groupshield! > I'm melting... > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to open > the private information store? > > I get the following error in Event Viewer: > > McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. > > Then I also get this error: > > Alert Manager Event Log Alert: > > An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for > details.(from Serial# 3) IP user SYSTEM running > GroupShield 5.20.664.0 odcmd) > > I have defragged the private store and I have uninstalled/reinstalled GSE > but > I cannot figure out why this is happening. > > Any help
RE: IS 70GB and growing....
About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. -Original Message- From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in size. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! The exchange server is 3 years old - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > shouldn't be > a file server. > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > window time etc. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > Posted To: Exchange List > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > so angry. > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > some information.. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > Hi. > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > 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 Great > Cthulhu > > > > > Jones > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > Nate > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > -- > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq) > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains > > > > SIS. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. > > > > > > > > I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB > > > > (total > > > > > > > of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to > > > > split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will > > > > loose SIS... On the other hand, I will have two smaller > > > > databases. > > > > > > > > I am sure some of you had this scenario in the past. I would > > > > like > to > > > > hear your opinions. In case it is important, the
RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox
Fiona, Don't go for the Veritas IDR solution. I have just installed it and we are using it because it given to us by Veritas with netbackup. All it does is an automated Windows NT/2000 MS install and at the end runs a GUI program to do a restore. A total waste of time to install a OS (about a hour or so) just to have it overwritten with the restore. There new replaement software they have just bought off another compkany called 'bare metal restore' seems to be a MUCH MUCH better product. Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 October 2002 12:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox Fioon, call you Veritas representative and ask for an evaluation copy of the IDR (strange that there isnt an eval version, they have evals of all the other options). I've used both, and the Veritas solution is superior in every way to Arcserve (at least once CA got hold of it). Glenn - Original Message - From: "Fioon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:57 PM Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > Hi Ed Crowley, > > You've got so much experience, would you like to have a few comment on > ArcServe & Veritas ? > I've tested on the ArcServe 's DR on a testing server,it's work fine. Would > like to test on Veritas, but unfortunately they dont provided any DR > evaluation copy, so i can't evaluate on that. I wonder how good is Veritas's > IDR. I've heared so many bad comments of ArcServe here, which make me > confuse . ..& worry. > > Now i'm can only test on the Veritas Normal Backup. > > Your advice is highly appreciately > Thanks > Fion > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > BLB = Brick Level Backup, or backup of individual mailboxes. > SMR = I am guessing that this is Single Mailbox Restore. > > 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 Fioon > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 9:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > Hei, > > Recently have interested in Veritas, but quite new. May i know what is > BLB & SMR guys referring to ? Thanks > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > Thank you very much. > > Fortunately, I'm not using BLB. I'll proceed with my SMR. If I can't > get it back through agents tab, I'll try the decoder and/or mdbvue . > I'll let you know how I made out. > > Thanks again, > Louise > > -Original Message- > From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:58 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > It's been quite a while when I was playing with this stuff and I > remember that it is not trivial. > > Let's see what I can remember... The Exchange 5.5 Scripting agent script > itself is stored as a hidden item in the folder it is applied to (in > your case: the particular mailbox on Server A). Another second config > item, also hidden, is created on the server the script is supposed to be > executed (in your case Server B) in the system folder Event_Config (or > similar - can't remember the correct name unfortunately). > > So, if you just want to get the script code back then try to restore the > whole mailbox store on a recovery server [1] and use either a debugging > tool [2] or try to connect with Outlook and see if you can get it via > the Agents tab. > > [1] Note that if you use BLB [3] you might not be able to restore > Scripting Agents. Only if you use an Exchange backup aware product to do > a full IS backup/restore you have a chance. [2] Either MicroEye > ScriptDorector > (http://www.microeye.com/scriptdirector) or the Microsoft Agent Editor > (used to be in the Exchange 5.5 SDK or BackOffice Resource Kit 4.5) or > plain mdbvu32.exe (comes with Exchange on the setup CD). But the latter > needs to be used CAREFULLY. [3] BLB => Brick Level Backup like it is > offered with ArcServe, Veritas and other backup software. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:16 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm hoping you can assist me in just how to recover an event script > that > > is > > associated with a particular mailbox. It seems the
RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
Let's see... This version will break the boot process of the OS[1]. Some versions of Groupshield 4 were documented to delete, without recourse, non-Virus infected (and often straight plain text) email from Exchange. Why do people continue to buy this product? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Can anyone explain to me WTF its doing touching anything involving the boot process? > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Here is a MS KB article on it: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; > > -Mike > > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help > with a problem, > they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next > guy that came on > the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We > had tons of > problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we > slow coming when > compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. > > We are running Symantec no, no problems. > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and > never had any > problems. > > We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did > already), as well > as installing the management console (they call it e-policy > orchestrator > nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll > consider switching... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart > from constantly > trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Or not... > > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Or Symantec... > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > William Lefkovics > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > or GFI? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > How about Sybari or Trend? > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > HA! > > I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its > my only choice > right now until I can get NAV implemented. > > > -- > > From: Andy David > > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject:RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > > Ah! > > Groupshield! > > I'm melting... > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > > > > Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not > being able to > open > > the private information store? > > > > I get the following error in Event Viewer: > > > > McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. > > > > Then I also get this error: > > > > Alert Manager Event Log Alert: > > > > An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for > > details.(from Serial# 3) IP user SYSTEM > running > > GroupShield 5.20.664.0 odcmd) > > > > I have defragged the private store and I have > uninstalled/reinstalled > GSE > > but > > I cannot figure out why this is happening. > > > > Any help is appreciated. > > > > ~!M > > > >
RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
Don't get me started on ePO - let's just say that after 8 hours with one of their engineers on site, they couldn't bring one client machine under management IN OUR TEST LAB environment, we didn't buy the product. ScanMail and Antigen also provide attachment blocking, and neither have been shown to corrupt the boot options nor cause the direct loss of mail, both of which are documented issues with GrouchShield. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe > not because it is great, but the fact that it gives you the > ability to use the Blackstone list - which has protected us > from every virus that has come up lately. I love Epolicy and > would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical > control of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week > and every outbreak. > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Here is a MS KB article on it: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; > > -Mike > > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help > with a problem, > they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next > guy that came on > the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We > had tons of > problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we > slow coming when > compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. > > We are running Symantec no, no problems. > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and > never had any > problems. > > We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did > already), as well > as installing the management console (they call it e-policy > orchestrator > nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll > consider switching... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart > from constantly > trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Or not... > > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Or Symantec... > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > William Lefkovics > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > or GFI? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > How about Sybari or Trend? > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > HA! > > I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its > my only choice > right now until I can get NAV implemented. > > > -- > > From: Andy David > > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject:RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > > Ah! > > Groupshield! > > I'm melting... > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > > > > Anyone ever have problems w
RE: IS 70GB and growing....
Yes I have a 2.2gb user. I tried to set a 2.3gb limit to stop it getting any worse, but exchange 5.5 seems to only let me set up to about 2.1gb - is this normal behaviour? > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 09:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. > > 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. > > -Original Message- > From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in > size. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! > The exchange server is 3 years old > > - Original Message - > From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > > shouldn't > be > > a file server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > > window time etc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > > Posted To: Exchange List > > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > > > so angry. > > > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > > some information.. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > Technical Consultant > > > hp Services > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > > > 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 Great > > Cthulhu > > > > > > > Jones > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > > Nate > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti > > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq) > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains > > > > > SIS. > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: Mark Hanji
RE: IS 70GB and growing....
That can be arranged, especially if you want people who post to it to die like dogs. Even better, have them die like roaches. That's more fun. I got these Ancient Greek bronze catheters I've been itching to try out on someone. How about this thread dying like tortured roaches? (:= -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing I vote for this thread to die like a dog. - Original Message - From: "Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:35 AM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in size. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! The exchange server is 3 years old - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users and > 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email shouldn't be > a file server. > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup window > time etc. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > Posted To: Exchange List > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > so > angry. > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > some > information.. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > Hi. > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > 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 Great > Cthulhu > > > > > Jones > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not showing > > > much improvement... > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, Nate > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > -- > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need two > > > > servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq) > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains SIS. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. > > > > > > > > I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong ma
RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
Not directly the boot process.. Just files in the root of C:. Mind you, your [1] is still a valid point... -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 1:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Let's see... This version will break the boot process of the OS[1]. Some versions of Groupshield 4 were documented to delete, without recourse, non-Virus infected (and often straight plain text) email from Exchange. Why do people continue to buy this product? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Can anyone explain to me WTF its doing touching anything involving the boot process? > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Here is a MS KB article on it: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; > > -Mike > > -Original Message- > From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help > with a problem, > they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next > guy that came on > the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We > had tons of > problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we > slow coming when > compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. > > We are running Symantec no, no problems. > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and > never had any > problems. > > We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did > already), as well > as installing the management console (they call it e-policy > orchestrator > nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll > consider switching... > > > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. > > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart > from constantly > trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Or not... > > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Or Symantec... > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > William Lefkovics > Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > or GFI? > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > How about Sybari or Trend? > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > HA! > > I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its > my only choice > right now until I can get NAV implemented. > > > -- > > From: Andy David > > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject:RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > > Ah! > > Groupshield! > > I'm melting... > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > > > > Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not > being able to > open > > the private information store? > > > > I get the following error in Event Viewer: > > > > McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. > > > > Then I also get this error: > > > > Alert Manager Event Log Alert: > > > > An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check the log for > > details.(from S
W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
Dear DL Members, At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers print off over 100 pages of garbled text. Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and we are working on it. Let me know. Thanks. Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
We run GS 5. AFAIK, we don't have these problems. -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 3:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment Dear DL Members, At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers print off over 100 pages of garbled text. Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and we are working on it. Let me know. Thanks. Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrea Coppini +356 79 ANDREA (263732) [EMAIL PROTECTED] EMPOWER PEOPLE - THE WORLD IN YOUR HAND iWG (iWORLD GROUP) is a global e-mobile company creating, building and growing new businesses. iWG founders are pioneers in creating multi-billion dollar mobile and Internet businesses in Europe, Asia and the US. The Global Partners include the shareholders Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, Hikari Tsushin, McCaw, PaineWebber/UBS, The Dolphins' Trust, Perikles Trust and the iAA Advisory Network. www.iWG.info www.countryprofiler.com/iWG Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
Here we go again My 2 penneth <1>Dump Groupshield <2>Install Sybari (my preference) or Trend<2> Yours, Julian Stone -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 14:24 pm To: Exchange Discussions Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment Dear DL Members, At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers print off over 100 pages of garbled text. Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and we are working on it. Let me know. Thanks. Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
We use real antivirus software (Trend Micro baby!! Sorry Kelly) so we don't have your problem... -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment Dear DL Members, At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers print off over 100 pages of garbled text. Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and we are working on it. Let me know. Thanks. Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Antigen vs. Trend
All, We have just about finished configuring a new server running Exchange 5.5 SP4 on Windows 2K Advanced Server. we are looking into Antivirus software and have pretty much narrowed it down to Trend and Antigen. I am personally leaning towards Trend Neat Suite that seems to offer a lot more desktop options for desktop and server protection as well. But I'm curious if you all think that possibly Antigen's pros outweigh the pros of the suite of Trend. Does any one have any information that would be useful in my decision? Thanks in advance, Brian _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Antigen vs. Trend
Although a good friend works at Sybari, I still buy Trend for all Exchange boxes. They still have the best AV research team out there, and regularly beat most everyone else with definition updates. That, and in 4 years, I've never had an outbreak because of a failure of ScanMail. NeatSuite rocks - we use most of the components here. Sybari doesn't sell products for servers and workstations, so you can't compare NeatSuite to Antigen (at least not validly). And you need desktop protection too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:29 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Antigen vs. Trend > > > All, > We have just about finished configuring a new server running > Exchange 5.5 > SP4 on Windows 2K Advanced Server. we are looking into > Antivirus software > and have pretty much narrowed it down to Trend and Antigen. > I am personally > leaning towards Trend Neat Suite that seems to offer a lot > more desktop > options for desktop and server protection as well. But I'm > curious if you > all think that possibly Antigen's pros outweigh the pros of > the suite of > Trend. Does any one have any information that would be useful in my > decision? > > Thanks in advance, > Brian > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
We're using Groupshield here with no issues. Webshield, however uugghhh Thanks Russell -Original Message- From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 We use McAfee for the desktop/server file coverage, and yes ePO does make the firewall/anti-virus control so much easier. But for Exchange, Trend is our favorite no problems since I've been here unlike some of our sister divisions who have had fun with Groupshield :-). Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 October 2002 21:40 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe not because it is great, but the fact that it gives you the ability to use the Blackstone list - which has protected us from every virus that has come up lately. I love Epolicy and would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical control of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week and every outbreak. -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Here is a MS KB article on it: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; -Mike -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help with a problem, they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next guy that came on the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We had tons of problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we slow coming when compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. We are running Symantec no, no problems. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and never had any problems. We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as well as installing the management console (they call it e-policy orchestrator nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider switching... -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart from constantly trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Or not... -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Or Symantec... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 or GFI? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 How about Sybari or Trend? -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 HA! I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only choice right now until I can get NAV implemented. > -- > From: Andy David > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > Ah! > Groupshield! > I'm melting... > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to open > the private information store? > > I get the following error in Event Viewer: > > McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. > > Then I also get this error: > > Alert Manager Event Log Alert: > > An internal error occurre
RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
I have seen these arrive in a similar state, they get through MailSweeper 4.3 (with Sophos). I understand that it gets through MS because some of the content boundaries are malformed and therefore MS only scans the header, maybe this is happening with GS? We use NAVMSE at the back end which catches any that get through. Nick -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 14:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment Dear DL Members, At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers print off over 100 pages of garbled text. Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and we are working on it. Let me know. Thanks. Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
Couldn't figure out what caused 2 of our Exchange servers to crash until reading this thread. We are about to install Webshield though. What problems have you experienced? Thanks, Jason >From: "Etts, Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:40:43 -0400 > >We're using Groupshield here with no issues. Webshield, however >uugghhh > >Thanks > >Russell > > > >-Original Message- >From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:50 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >We use McAfee for the desktop/server file coverage, and yes ePO does make >the firewall/anti-virus control so much easier. But for Exchange, Trend is >our favorite no problems since I've been here unlike some of our sister >divisions who have had fun with Groupshield :-). > >Cheers > >Paul > >Standards are like toothbrushes, >everyone wants one but not yours > > >-Original Message- >From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 07 October 2002 21:40 >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe not because it >is >great, but the fact that it gives you the ability to use the Blackstone >list >- which has protected us from every virus that has come up lately. I love >Epolicy and would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical control >of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week and every outbreak. > >-Original Message- >From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Here is a MS KB article on it: > >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; > >-Mike > >-Original Message- >From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help with a problem, >they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next guy that came >on >the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We had tons of >problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we slow coming when >compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. > >We are running Symantec no, no problems. >-Original Message- >From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > >Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and never had any >problems. > >We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as well >as installing the management console (they call it e-policy orchestrator >nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider >switching... > > > >-Original Message- >From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. > >-Original Message- >From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart from constantly >trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. > >-Original Message- >From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Or not... > >-Original Message- >From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Or Symantec... > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics >Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >or GFI? > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David >Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >How about Sybari or Trend? > > >-Original Message- >From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >HA! > >I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only >choice >right now until I can get NAV implemented. > > > -- > > From: Andy David > > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject:RE: McA
RE: Antigen vs. Trend
> -Original Message- > From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 14:29 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Antigen vs. Trend > > > All, > We have just about finished configuring a new server running > Exchange 5.5 SP4 on Windows 2K Advanced Server. we are > looking into Antivirus software and have pretty much narrowed > it down to Trend and Antigen. I am personally leaning > towards Trend Neat Suite that seems to offer a lot more > desktop options for desktop and server protection as well. > But I'm curious if you all think that possibly Antigen's pros > outweigh the pros of the suite of Trend. Does any one have > any information that would be useful in my decision? > > Thanks in advance, > Brian Having a different virus scanner on your gateways into the system from the one on your desktops is actually a "pro" in and of itself. Is this an option? Robert Moir IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College >SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0 0 rows returned _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
I run Groupshield 4.5 (Engine 4.1.60) and it works fine. Haven't seen a single instance of Bugbear penetrate. We do block the common extensions (VBS, EXE, SCR, PIF, etc.) and that helps a bunch. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: Julian Stone > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2002 08:28 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment > > Here we go again > > My 2 penneth > > <1>Dump Groupshield > <2>Install Sybari (my preference) or Trend<2> > > Yours, > > Julian Stone > > > -Original Message- > From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 14:24 pm > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment > > > Dear DL Members, > > At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield > 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. > > GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM > virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file > attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file > attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and > Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers > print off over 100 pages of garbled text. > Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, > they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). > > Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? > > What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? > > I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the > latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting > infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and > we are working on it. > > Let me know. > Thanks. > > > Rob Garrish > Exchange Administrator > Wawa Inc. > 610-558-8371 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Antigen vs. Trend
We have a site license for Symantec (Norton) Antivirus for the desktop. We just purchased Antigen for our exchange server. Antigen uses 6 different virus scanning engines at the same time! Between those 6 engines on our Exchange server and Norton on the desktop we feel we are protected. (7 different virus detection engines total) I would be concerned about depending on a single vendor for both desktop and exchange virus protection (i.e. Symantec or Trend). At the very least, use Trend for Exchange and Symantec for the Desktop. Tom Gray, Network Engineer All Kinds of Minds & The Center for Development and Learning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT&T Net: (919)960- -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Antigen vs. Trend Although a good friend works at Sybari, I still buy Trend for all Exchange boxes. They still have the best AV research team out there, and regularly beat most everyone else with definition updates. That, and in 4 years, I've never had an outbreak because of a failure of ScanMail. NeatSuite rocks - we use most of the components here. Sybari doesn't sell products for servers and workstations, so you can't compare NeatSuite to Antigen (at least not validly). And you need desktop protection too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:29 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Antigen vs. Trend > > > All, > We have just about finished configuring a new server running > Exchange 5.5 > SP4 on Windows 2K Advanced Server. we are looking into > Antivirus software > and have pretty much narrowed it down to Trend and Antigen. > I am personally > leaning towards Trend Neat Suite that seems to offer a lot > more desktop > options for desktop and server protection as well. But I'm > curious if you > all think that possibly Antigen's pros outweigh the pros of > the suite of > Trend. Does any one have any information that would be useful in my > decision? > > Thanks in advance, > Brian > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
And you are praying for the day when it blows up? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 04:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. -Original Message- From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in size. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! The exchange server is 3 years old - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > shouldn't be > a file server. > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > window time etc. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > Posted To: Exchange List > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > so angry. > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > some information.. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > Hi. > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > 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 Great > Cthulhu > > > > > Jones > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > Nate > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > -- > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq) > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains > > > > SIS. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. > > > > > > > > I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB > > > > (total > > > > > > > of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to > > > > split this box into two servers. The main problem is that
RE: Antigen vs. Trend
Actually, we run Symantec on the desktop and Trend on the server side (ScanMail, ServerProtect and VirusWall). I do believe in multiple defense strategies. My biggest problem with Antigen is that they don't write their own scan engines, and because of that they are at the mercy of those vendors to get it correct. In looking at who they use, I won't use products from CA or NAI, which rule out two of them, I've had mixed experiences with Panda (in test envrionments), and Norman and Kaperski are fairly small shops, which pretty much leaves Sophos. I don't necessarily think 6 is better than 1, if you have the right one. That being said, Antigen is the only other product than Scanmail that I would even consider installing on my Exchange servers. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Antigen vs. Trend > > > > We have a site license for Symantec (Norton) Antivirus for > the desktop. We just purchased Antigen for our exchange > server. Antigen uses 6 different virus scanning engines at > the same time! Between those 6 engines on our Exchange > server and Norton on the desktop we feel we are protected. (7 > different virus detection engines total) > > I would be concerned about depending on a single vendor for > both desktop and exchange virus protection (i.e. Symantec or > Trend). At the very least, use Trend for Exchange and > Symantec for the Desktop. > > Tom Gray, Network Engineer > All Kinds of Minds & The Center for Development and Learning > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill > Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > AT&T Net: (919)960- > > > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:39 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Antigen vs. Trend > > > Although a good friend works at Sybari, I still buy Trend for > all Exchange > boxes. They still have the best AV research team out there, > and regularly > beat most everyone else with definition updates. That, and in > 4 years, I've > never had an outbreak because of a failure of ScanMail. > > NeatSuite rocks - we use most of the components here. > > Sybari doesn't sell products for servers and workstations, so > you can't > compare NeatSuite to Antigen (at least not validly). And you > need desktop > protection too. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:29 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Antigen vs. Trend > > > > > > All, > > We have just about finished configuring a new server running > > Exchange 5.5 > > SP4 on Windows 2K Advanced Server. we are looking into > > Antivirus software > > and have pretty much narrowed it down to Trend and Antigen. > > I am personally > > leaning towards Trend Neat Suite that seems to offer a lot > > more desktop > > options for desktop and server protection as well. But I'm > > curious if you > > all think that possibly Antigen's pros outweigh the pros of > > the suite of > > Trend. Does any one have any information that would be useful in my > > decision? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Brian > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Script to autocreate mail folder/server side rule
Exch55sp4, NT4sp5. Checked cdolive.com, but wasn't able to find what I was looking for. Looking for a way to script the creation of a mail folder and the creation of a rule forwarding mail (based on subject line) to this folder for a specified set of mailboxes in the GAL. We have lots of users who only have access to OWA and have no way to manually create the folder/rule the organization wants everyone to have. Thanks ... Jim _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Antigen vs. Trend
> and Norman and Kaperski are fairly small > shops, Kaperski's mailing list is pretty interesting. It's usualy worth getting your support id on several virus mailing lists so that you have some idea what's out there before it's reported on news.bbc.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 newbie question-what is "EHLO"?
> > > I am getting the following errors in my firewall logs? > > > > > > smtp[3041]: 334 Warning: Denied access to command 'EHLO > > > logonlvm01.logonlv.com' from [66.93.249.102] > > > > > > What does this mean? And it is a problem with my firewall? Or the > > > way I have my exchange setup? See http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc821.html and http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Antigen vs. Trend
We use Antigen, and one of the scan engines we use is NAI, the other being Sophos. Having used Groupshield in the past I would normally agree that it's best not to use NAI products, but I have to say that the NAI scan engine works really well within Antigen, better, in fact than it does in Groupshield. For one thing the automatic updates always work, and for another Sybari seems to enhance the dat files by adding in extra.dats that normal NAI users don't get. One thing that's nice about the multiple scan engines, aside from the sheer number of engines, is that you also get some geographical distribution in the sources for your dat files. Since viruses can appear pretty much anywhere, this gives you a better chance that at least one of your scan engines will get an early critical update. -Peter -Original Message- From: Busby, Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Antigen vs. Trend > and Norman and Kaperski are fairly small > shops, Kaperski's mailing list is pretty interesting. It's usualy worth getting your support id on several virus mailing lists so that you have some idea what's out there before it's reported on news.bbc.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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 message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
Hi there There are two issues that we ran into with Webshield: 1) Webshield would suddenly hold all of our emails and corrupt them. When we called NAI they said they don't recommend install groupshield and webshield on the same server. 2) Out of the box, Webshield is set to relay. The only way I figured this out was to stop webshield and then have my servers checked by all the anti spam companies (ORDB.org, etc). After calling NAI and really hammering the tech on the other line, he finally admitted that the product does relay. In the setup manual, there is a section that explains how to set webshield to accept mail from servers within your company. However, the instructions tell you it is not really necessary to do this. The instructions lie. The tech told me the instructions are not "clear". HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Jason Rader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Couldn't figure out what caused 2 of our Exchange servers to crash until reading this thread. We are about to install Webshield though. What problems have you experienced? Thanks, Jason >From: "Etts, Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:40:43 -0400 > >We're using Groupshield here with no issues. Webshield, however >uugghhh > >Thanks > >Russell > > > >-Original Message- >From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:50 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >We use McAfee for the desktop/server file coverage, and yes ePO does make >the firewall/anti-virus control so much easier. But for Exchange, Trend is >our favorite no problems since I've been here unlike some of our sister >divisions who have had fun with Groupshield :-). > >Cheers > >Paul > >Standards are like toothbrushes, >everyone wants one but not yours > > >-Original Message- >From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 07 October 2002 21:40 >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe not because it >is >great, but the fact that it gives you the ability to use the Blackstone >list >- which has protected us from every virus that has come up lately. I love >Epolicy and would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical control >of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week and every outbreak. > >-Original Message- >From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Here is a MS KB article on it: > >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; > >-Mike > >-Original Message- >From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help with a problem, >they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next guy that came >on >the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We had tons of >problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we slow coming when >compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. > >We are running Symantec no, no problems. >-Original Message- >From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > >Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and never had any >problems. > >We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as well >as installing the management console (they call it e-policy orchestrator >nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider >switching... > > > >-Original Message- >From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. > >-Original Message- >From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart from constantly >trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. > >-Original Message- >From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Or not... > >-Original Message- >From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
We use Webshield on a standalone machine, just to scan incoming mail before it hits the real Exchange server. It's been running like this for the past 6 months, and has performed very well. Same with Groupshield. I had some problems with the earlier versions, but the 4.5 version has worked very well on our Exchange 5.5 server for quite some time now. I just built our new Exchange 2000 machine last Friday, and installed Groupshield 5.2 on it. No problems so far. Every new release (4.0, 4.5, 5.0, etc.) has more than a few problems, so it seems their testing procedures leave much to be desired. But once they clean up the bugs (4.5sp1, 5.2) the product performs quite well. YMMV. Mike -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:00 PM To: Exchange Maillist Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Hi there There are two issues that we ran into with Webshield: 1) Webshield would suddenly hold all of our emails and corrupt them. When we called NAI they said they don't recommend install groupshield and webshield on the same server. 2) Out of the box, Webshield is set to relay. The only way I figured this out was to stop webshield and then have my servers checked by all the anti spam companies (ORDB.org, etc). After calling NAI and really hammering the tech on the other line, he finally admitted that the product does relay. In the setup manual, there is a section that explains how to set webshield to accept mail from servers within your company. However, the instructions tell you it is not really necessary to do this. The instructions lie. The tech told me the instructions are not "clear". HTH Russell -Original Message- From: Jason Rader [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Couldn't figure out what caused 2 of our Exchange servers to crash until reading this thread. We are about to install Webshield though. What problems have you experienced? Thanks, Jason >From: "Etts, Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:40:43 -0400 > >We're using Groupshield here with no issues. Webshield, however >uugghhh > >Thanks > >Russell > > > >-Original Message- >From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:50 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >We use McAfee for the desktop/server file coverage, and yes ePO does >make the firewall/anti-virus control so much easier. But for Exchange, >Trend is our favorite no problems since I've been here unlike some of >our sister divisions who have had fun with Groupshield :-). > >Cheers > >Paul > >Standards are like toothbrushes, >everyone wants one but not yours > > >-Original Message- >From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: 07 October 2002 21:40 >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe not because >it >is >great, but the fact that it gives you the ability to use the Blackstone >list >- which has protected us from every virus that has come up lately. I love >Epolicy and would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical control >of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week and every outbreak. > >-Original Message- >From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Here is a MS KB article on it: > >http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; > >-Mike > >-Original Message- >From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > >Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help with a >problem, they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next >guy that came on the phone said that the product was no longer >supported. We had tons of problems with it, service was always >stopping, updates we slow coming when compared to other products, tons >of technical problem. we dumped it. > >We are running Symantec no, no problems. >-Original Message- >From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > >Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and never had >any problems. > >We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as >well as installing the management console (they call it e-policy >orchestrator >nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider >switching... > > > >-Original Message- >From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
RE: IS 70GB and growing....
I think it might be related to the fact that when you sort mailboxes by size in Exchange Admin all the over 2 GB mailboxes wrap around to the beginning of the list. -Peter -Original Message- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:54 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing Yes I have a 2.2gb user. I tried to set a 2.3gb limit to stop it getting any worse, but exchange 5.5 seems to only let me set up to about 2.1gb - is this normal behaviour? > -Original Message- > From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 09:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. > > 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. > > -Original Message- > From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in > size. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! > The exchange server is 3 years old > > - Original Message - > From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > > shouldn't > be > > a file server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > > window time etc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > > Posted To: Exchange List > > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > > > so angry. > > > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > > some information.. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > Technical Consultant > > > hp Services > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > > > 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 Great > > Cthulhu > > > > > > > Jones > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > > Nate > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
MTA service just quits...
What would cause the MTA service to just quit? Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... Dustin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MTA service just quits...
Exchange 5.5 or Exchange 2000? I have seen 2000 MTA just quit by itself because the server could not find the domain controllers. -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MTA service just quits... What would cause the MTA service to just quit? Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... Dustin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
TCP tuning
Hi all. Could anyone here confirm whether this helps? http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm I am looking at this because some of my customers are reporting slow Outlook performance despite VERY good Internet connectivity (high bandwidth, very good traceroutes in both directions). Some customers have to click Retry a couple of times before Outlook connects to their Exchange server. I have tried these settings on a lab server and it is running fine. However I can't really simluate the real world network load of the production server in the lab in order to verify whether these settings made any improvements. I am also checking these articles that indicate Win2K SP3 may help in my situation: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301337 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301117 Andrey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
Our Mail server is 5 years old, has 1100 mailboxes and not one is over 120megs thanks to storage limits. Anyone who complains saves anything critical to a fileserver or a pst. The system works great. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing And you are praying for the day when it blows up? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 04:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. -Original Message- From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in size. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! The exchange server is 3 years old - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > shouldn't be > a file server. > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > window time etc. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > Posted To: Exchange List > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > so angry. > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > some information.. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > Hi. > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > 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 Great > Cthulhu > > > > > Jones > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > Nate > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > -- > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq) > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains > > > > SIS. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > >
RE: MTA service just quits...
Most of the time it is due to misconfigured AV software. What AV software are you running? Is it scanning the files, information store, or both? Aaron -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MTA service just quits... What would cause the MTA service to just quit? Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... Dustin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MTA service just quits...
Bad messages, really bad network links. Plenty of stuff. What errors are logged in the event log? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussions > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: MTA service just quits... > > > What would cause the MTA service to just quit? > > Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few > days later... > > > Dustin > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MTA service just quits...
Maybe your Ethernet is leaking -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Exchange Discussions Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MTA service just quits... What would cause the MTA service to just quit? Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... Dustin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MTA service just quits...
Look at the event logs. There are many reasons for this to happen. Then search Microsoft's Knowledge Base to find appropriate action. - Original Message - From: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 12:37 PM Subject: MTA service just quits... > What would cause the MTA service to just quit? > > Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... > > > Dustin > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Problem with Public Folder
I have an Exchange 2000 server that was working fine for the last year. We use a public folder as a central contacts folder for our business. Since this morning, some users (not all) can't modify or create contacts to this folder, but other can. No changes were made on the server nor on the workstations (Windows 2000 using Outlook 2000 to connect to Exchange). The exact error message that users get is: "The item could not be saved to this folder. The folder has been deleted or moved, or you do not have permission. Do you want to save a copy of it in the default folder for the item?" I checked users' rights on the folder and they are all editor (wich as not changed since folder creation). My question: What can be the problem and is there a way to fix it? BTW, Folder contains 2844 items and his size is 399330k. Is this too big for a contact folder? Thanks for your help! Albert Charron Trisotech Inc. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MTA service just quits...
Since you didn't provide your environment, I will speculate that maybe one of the drives is low on disk space. I would check the various drives and see. Geoff... -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MTA service just quits... What would cause the MTA service to just quit? Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... Dustin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: MTA service just quits...
Dear Dustin, On what Drive does your MTA exist? Are you running out of Disk Space on that Drive? Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 01:37 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MTA service just quits... What would cause the MTA service to just quit? Every so often it dies, then I restart it, and it dies a few days later... Dustin _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Weird bounced message
EX5.5 SP4, NT4 SP6 Messages to a specific vendor (and their ISP) bounces back, when it's sent from our mail server. They can receive from any other place. Contacted their ISP and they said they're not gonna check their logs they get a proof that it is actually being blocked or bounced by their Unix mail server. Below is the bounced message we get: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' on 10/8/2002 3:13 PM The recipient name is not recognized The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=VISIONICS;l=S-MAIL-021008191227Z-31529 There's nothing in the Event Viewer. Messages go out the IMC without a problem. Exchange can connect to port 25 on all of ISP's mail server. Would message tracking help figuring out the problem? If so where's the default directory/files to look at? Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: TCP tuning
Are these users locally connecting, or are they coming across VPN or the like? Some slow connect issues are DNS (or name resolution in general) related, so make sure you have good name resolution first off. If they are coming across VPN, Outlook sends a lot of packets with the Do Not Fragment bit set, and if the packet plus the IPSec overhead exceeds the MTU size, it will reject the packet. In certain circumstances (I can't pin them down entirely), the ICMP reply "Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set." gets dropped, so the client doesn't factor that into the MTU size. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: TCP tuning > > > Hi all. Could anyone here confirm whether this helps? > > http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm > > > I am looking at this because some of my customers are > reporting slow Outlook performance despite VERY good Internet > connectivity (high bandwidth, very good traceroutes in both > directions). > > Some customers have to click Retry a couple of times before > Outlook connects to their Exchange server. > > I have tried these settings on a lab server and it is running > fine. However I can't really simluate the real world network > load of the production server in the lab in order to verify > whether these settings made any improvements. > > > > I am also checking these articles that indicate Win2K SP3 may > help in my situation: > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301337 > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301117 > > Andrey > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
Maybe you should familiarize him with the delete key. - Original Message - From: "Andrea Coppini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:24 AM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. -Original Message- From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in size. -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! The exchange server is 3 years old - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > shouldn't be > a file server. > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > window time etc. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > Posted To: Exchange List > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > so angry. > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > some information.. > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Technical Consultant > > hp Services > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > problems." > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > Hi. > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > 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 Great > Cthulhu > > > > > Jones > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > Nate > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > -- > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > two servers. If not, buy more hard drives. > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sakti > > > > Chakravarty (Senteq) > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 6:44 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly, using the Move Mailbox utility retains > > > > SIS. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Monday, 30 September 2002 6:29 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys. > > > > > > > > I have an exchange 5.5 on a strong machine. The IS is over 73GB > > > > (total > > > > > > > of 500 users). I am thinking whether it is the right move to > > > > split this box into two servers. The main problem is that I will
RE: Weird bounced message
I looked into tracking.log folder and the log files in there, but I can't find any useful information in there. Any ideas? Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OWA and Apache
Ok sorry if this is an ignorant question but, Situation: 1 public IP 1 Windows 2000 server in DMZ running an apache web server Exchange 2000 Windows 2000 AD Can I set up the apache web server to provide OWA to users from the internet, in other words will an Apache web server host the OWA application If anyone knows of any articles or websites that explain how to do this (If possible) that would be great. Rob Weatherly _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
pst b - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > Our Mail server is 5 years old, has 1100 mailboxes and not one is over > 120megs thanks to storage limits. Anyone who complains saves anything > critical to a fileserver or a pst. The system works great. > > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > And you are praying for the day when it blows up? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 04:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. > > 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. > > -Original Message- > From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in > size. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! > The exchange server is 3 years old > > - Original Message - > From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > > shouldn't > be > > a file server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > > window time etc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > > Posted To: Exchange List > > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > > > so angry. > > > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > > some information.. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > Technical Consultant > > > hp Services > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > > > 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 Great > > Cthulhu > > > > > > > Jones > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > > Nate > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 20:20 > > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Who cares about it, though? If you need two servers, you need > > > > >
Re: Problem with Public Folder
Something changed. Or if multiple servers holding Public stores maybe replication had a problem. Any error in the logs? - Original Message - From: "Albert Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: Problem with Public Folder I have an Exchange 2000 server that was working fine for the last year. We use a public folder as a central contacts folder for our business. Since this morning, some users (not all) can't modify or create contacts to this folder, but other can. No changes were made on the server nor on the workstations (Windows 2000 using Outlook 2000 to connect to Exchange). The exact error message that users get is: "The item could not be saved to this folder. The folder has been deleted or moved, or you do not have permission. Do you want to save a copy of it in the default folder for the item?" I checked users' rights on the folder and they are all editor (wich as not changed since folder creation). My question: What can be the problem and is there a way to fix it? BTW, Folder contains 2844 items and his size is 399330k. Is this too big for a contact folder? Thanks for your help! Albert Charron Trisotech Inc. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Public folders vs. OWA - again
I know the topic has been hit before, but it seems to me I've tried all the fixes: W2KSP3, E2KSP3, simple network, only one exchange box. Public folders are visible via OWA while on the LAN. OWA works fine outside the LAN as well, except for public folders. >From outside, going to server.domain.com/exchange with a user logon & password works. Going to server.domain.com/public with same user logon & password doesn't work. But once the user has authenticated to the /Exchange folder, you can just change the url to /Public and - poof - the public folders come up properly. I've modified the domains to the correct one in ESM/protocols, and under the corresponding places in IIS manager. Technet says everything will be fine if you just go to the latest service pack, but not so. The issue is clearly one of authentication, but I must be overlooking something. Could someone tell me what it is? Thanks, David _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SIS and English
First, cool subject :-) Ex5.5, perfmon on MSexchangeIS private. I look at the "Single Instance Storage Ratio" counter and wonder: Does the word "ratio" means like the English "ratio" word, or it means actually how much data I save because I am using SIS? Idiot Question? Look at :Q160178 Single Instance Ratio: The ratio between the total number of message references and the total number of messages stored in the information store. This ratio indicates the amount of storage saved by single instance storage. = The first sentence talks about ratio, which means some kind of mathematical relation. The second sentence talks about a permanent number - "amount of storage". Well?! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OWA and Apache
You cannot. Missy - Original Message - From: "Weatherly, Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:03 PM Subject: OWA and Apache Ok sorry if this is an ignorant question but, Situation: 1 public IP 1 Windows 2000 server in DMZ running an apache web server Exchange 2000 Windows 2000 AD Can I set up the apache web server to provide OWA to users from the internet, in other words will an Apache web server host the OWA application If anyone knows of any articles or websites that explain how to do this (If possible) that would be great. Rob Weatherly _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Weird bounced message
Use the track message tool in Admin (if 5.5) or the Message Tracking Center in ESM (if E2K). Missy - Original Message - From: "Alex Alborzfard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:57 PM Subject: RE: Weird bounced message I looked into tracking.log folder and the log files in there, but I can't find any useful information in there. Any ideas? Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: TCP tuning
Customers put the name and IP address of the Exchange server into their HOSTS file. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TCP tuning Are these users locally connecting, or are they coming across VPN or the like? Some slow connect issues are DNS (or name resolution in general) related, so make sure you have good name resolution first off. If they are coming across VPN, Outlook sends a lot of packets with the Do Not Fragment bit set, and if the packet plus the IPSec overhead exceeds the MTU size, it will reject the packet. In certain circumstances (I can't pin them down entirely), the ICMP reply "Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set." gets dropped, so the client doesn't factor that into the MTU size. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: TCP tuning > > > Hi all. Could anyone here confirm whether this helps? > > http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm > > > I am looking at this because some of my customers are > reporting slow Outlook performance despite VERY good Internet > connectivity (high bandwidth, very good traceroutes in both > directions). > > Some customers have to click Retry a couple of times before > Outlook connects to their Exchange server. > > I have tried these settings on a lab server and it is running > fine. However I can't really simluate the real world network > load of the production server in the lab in order to verify > whether these settings made any improvements. > > > > I am also checking these articles that indicate Win2K SP3 may > help in my situation: > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301337 > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301117 > > Andrey > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: SIS and English
Sounds to me that if x messages exist in the store and y messages are duplicates, then the ratio can be expressed as a percentage of messages that are singly stored. Note that the number of bytes saved is not included in the calculation, hence the result says nothing about the number of bytes saved. I suppose you are supposed to assume that all the dups are copies of forwarded jokes, MP3 and other large attachments, rather than 500 copies of "To the loser who stole my pen, please return it, ASAP!" --Gary -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SIS and English First, cool subject :-) Ex5.5, perfmon on MSexchangeIS private. I look at the "Single Instance Storage Ratio" counter and wonder: Does the word "ratio" means like the English "ratio" word, or it means actually how much data I save because I am using SIS? Idiot Question? Look at :Q160178 Single Instance Ratio: The ratio between the total number of message references and the total number of messages stored in the information store. This ratio indicates the amount of storage saved by single instance storage. = The first sentence talks about ratio, which means some kind of mathematical relation. The second sentence talks about a permanent number - "amount of storage". Well?! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Public folders vs. OWA - again
Try this link for starters. Caution wraps http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechn ol/exchange/support/TROWAE2K.asp - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:57 PM Subject: Public folders vs. OWA - again I know the topic has been hit before, but it seems to me I've tried all the fixes: W2KSP3, E2KSP3, simple network, only one exchange box. Public folders are visible via OWA while on the LAN. OWA works fine outside the LAN as well, except for public folders. >From outside, going to server.domain.com/exchange with a user logon & password works. Going to server.domain.com/public with same user logon & password doesn't work. But once the user has authenticated to the /Exchange folder, you can just change the url to /Public and - poof - the public folders come up properly. I've modified the domains to the correct one in ESM/protocols, and under the corresponding places in IIS manager. Technet says everything will be fine if you just go to the latest service pack, but not so. The issue is clearly one of authentication, but I must be overlooking something. Could someone tell me what it is? Thanks, David _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA and Apache
Not host it, but it can theoretically proxy the HTTP traffic to the Exchange 2000 server. I've never tried this - indeed, I've never used Apache's proxy capabilities at all - so that's why I say "theoretically". You might even be able to use Apache to do the SSL encryption. If you really don't want IIS in your DMZ, use Microsoft's ISA server on your DMZ server to proxy the traffic to your Exchange server. I believe this is a supported (and even recommended) setup by Microsoft. Again, I've never done this, so I don't know how well it works. And, if you want to save a few bucks, use Microsoft's Small Business Server (Win2k server, ISA server, E2K, SQLServer) on the DMZ server. It will have to be it's own domain/forest, but for a DMZ computer, that might not be a bad thing. -Original Message- From: Missy Koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: OWA and Apache You cannot. Missy - Original Message - From: "Weatherly, Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:03 PM Subject: OWA and Apache Ok sorry if this is an ignorant question but, Situation: 1 public IP 1 Windows 2000 server in DMZ running an apache web server Exchange 2000 Windows 2000 AD Can I set up the apache web server to provide OWA to users from the internet, in other words will an Apache web server host the OWA application If anyone knows of any articles or websites that explain how to do this (If possible) that would be great. Rob Weatherly _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
We use Groupshield 4.5 (engine 4.1.6) and so far I haven't seen any virus passing through . Its updated to their latest DAT i.e. 4227 . We also block VBS, EXE, SCR, PIF (as defaulted at the time of installation). Kishore -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment I run Groupshield 4.5 (Engine 4.1.60) and it works fine. Haven't seen a single instance of Bugbear penetrate. We do block the common extensions (VBS, EXE, SCR, PIF, etc.) and that helps a bunch. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: Julian Stone > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2002 08:28 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment > > Here we go again > > My 2 penneth > > <1>Dump Groupshield > <2>Install Sybari (my preference) or Trend<2> > > Yours, > > Julian Stone > > > -Original Message- > From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 14:24 pm > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment > > > Dear DL Members, > > At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield > 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. > > GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM > virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file > attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file > attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and > Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers > print off over 100 pages of garbled text. > Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, > they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). > > Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? > > What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? > > I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the > latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting > infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and > we are working on it. > > Let me know. > Thanks. > > > Rob Garrish > Exchange Administrator > Wawa Inc. > 610-558-8371 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: TCP tuning
I have had slow connection issue for local LAN users which I finally figured was because Outlook was registering the full DNS name instead of NETBIOS name in the registry . Once I changed that to NETBIOS name problem got resolved. Kishore -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: TCP tuning Hi all. Could anyone here confirm whether this helps? http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm I am looking at this because some of my customers are reporting slow Outlook performance despite VERY good Internet connectivity (high bandwidth, very good traceroutes in both directions). Some customers have to click Retry a couple of times before Outlook connects to their Exchange server. I have tried these settings on a lab server and it is running fine. However I can't really simluate the real world network load of the production server in the lab in order to verify whether these settings made any improvements. I am also checking these articles that indicate Win2K SP3 may help in my situation: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301337 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301117 Andrey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
Public Folder
A user of ours deleted one Public Folder (she was owner of that ) . I can see that folder in the Exchange System Manager but don't know how to restore it to Active Public Folder views. Any ideas ?? Thanks, Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: McAfee GroupShield 5.2
One unit on my entire Campus doesn't use McAfee and there has never been any major issue. One little bug that was limited only to our campus and the fix was made in a relatively fast time period. All these issues that you guys are stating have never occurred here. And I use GroupShield NetShield, VirusScan and (after a little more testing) we are probably going to rollout the McAfee Firewall all managed through the policy Orchestrater product. It's not perfect, but then I have seen faults even by Norton which has FAILED to locate came some viruses that McAfee has caught. -Original Message- From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 I haven't had any problems with Groupshield either. Maybe not because it is great, but the fact that it gives you the ability to use the Blackstone list - which has protected us from every virus that has come up lately. I love Epolicy and would recommend it to anyone. Centralized, hierarchical control of all of you virus apps, saves me hours every week and every outbreak. -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Here is a MS KB article on it: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q319011&; -Mike -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Elaborate: I called McAfee about the product once for help with a problem, they charged us for the help then transferred us. The next guy that came on the phone said that the product was no longer supported. We had tons of problems with it, service was always stopping, updates we slow coming when compared to other products, tons of technical problem. we dumped it. We are running Symantec no, no problems. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 3:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Can someone elaborate? We've been using it for 2 years and never had any problems. We're about to renew our subscription (not sure if we did already), as well as installing the management console (they call it e-policy orchestrator nowadays..) on a new server If it's so crap, we'll consider switching... -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 October 2002 8:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 That will eventually change. They you will come back to the good side. -Original Message- From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 11:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 We use McAfee throughout... Never had any problems (apart from constantly trying to remember if it's called McAffee or McAfee or McAffe).. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 October 2002 4:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Or not... -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 7:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 Or Symantec... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 00:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 or GFI? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 How about Sybari or Trend? -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 HA! I know, I get grief from people all the time over it, but its my only choice right now until I can get NAV implemented. > -- > From: Andy David > Reply To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: Friday, October 4, 2002 10:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > Ah! > Groupshield! > I'm melting... > > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 9:31 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: McAfee GroupShield 5.2 > > > Anyone ever have problems with McAfee GSE 5.2 and it not being able to open > the private information store? > > I get the following error in Event Viewer: > > McAfee GroupShield Exchange failed to open private message store. > > Then I also get this error: > > Alert Manager Event Log Alert: > > An internal error occurred in Groupshield - please check
Re: Public Folder
Use Deleted Items retention to restore it. Make sure that the "DumpsterAlwaysOn" registry key (search TechNet for info) has been applied to her workstation so you can restore it from there - and show her how to recover it so you needn't visit next time she screws up. Missy - Original Message - From: "Gagrani, Kishore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 6:24 PM Subject: Public Folder A user of ours deleted one Public Folder (she was owner of that ) . I can see that folder in the Exchange System Manager but don't know how to restore it to Active Public Folder views. Any ideas ?? Thanks, Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Weird bounced message
The server accepting messages for csalaw.com claims that there is no user by the name of alamdin in that domain. Plain and simple. - Original Message - From: "Alex Alborzfard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:52 PM Subject: Weird bounced message > EX5.5 SP4, NT4 SP6 > > Messages to a specific vendor (and their ISP) bounces back, when it's sent > from our mail server. > They can receive from any other place. Contacted their ISP and they said > they're not gonna > check their logs they get a proof that it is actually being blocked or > bounced by their Unix mail server. > Below is the bounced message we get: > > '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' on 10/8/2002 3:13 PM > The recipient name is not recognized > The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= > ;p=VISIONICS;l=S-MAIL-021008191227Z-31529 > > There's nothing in the Event Viewer. Messages go out the IMC without a > problem. > Exchange can connect to port 25 on all of ISP's mail server. > Would message tracking help figuring out the problem? If so where's the > default directory/files > to look at? > > Thanks > > --Alex Alborzfard > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: TCP tuning
Slow OL connectivity is almost always name resolution. - Original Message - From: "Andrey Fyodorov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:11 PM Subject: TCP tuning Hi all. Could anyone here confirm whether this helps? http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm I am looking at this because some of my customers are reporting slow Outlook performance despite VERY good Internet connectivity (high bandwidth, very good traceroutes in both directions). Some customers have to click Retry a couple of times before Outlook connects to their Exchange server. I have tried these settings on a lab server and it is running fine. However I can't really simluate the real world network load of the production server in the lab in order to verify whether these settings made any improvements. I am also checking these articles that indicate Win2K SP3 may help in my situation: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301337 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q301117 Andrey _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
DL in Global Address Book
Does anybody know how to monitor the DL in the Global Address List? Basically I want to know if a DL is being used at all. The only thing I can think of is by adding myself to that DL and I don't want to do that. Thanks Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
pst. bad news... don't tell us anymore... its killing me! -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 9 October 2002 07:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing pst b - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > Our Mail server is 5 years old, has 1100 mailboxes and not one is over > 120megs thanks to storage limits. Anyone who complains saves anything > critical to a fileserver or a pst. The system works great. > > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > And you are praying for the day when it blows up? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 04:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. > > 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. > > -Original Message- > From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB in > size. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! > The exchange server is 3 years old > > - Original Message - > From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 users > > and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your email > > shouldn't > be > > a file server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > > window time etc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > > Posted To: Exchange List > > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made you > > > so angry. > > > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to provide > > some information.. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > Technical Consultant > > > hp Services > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Hanji > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > > > 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 Great > > Cthulhu > > > > > > > Jones > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, > > > > Nate > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:55 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote for two servers. > > > > > > > > Nate Couch > > > > EDS Messaging > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > From: Great Cthulhu Jones > > > > > Reply To:
Re: DL in Global Address Book
Create a PF accessible only by you and add it's address to the DL. - Original Message - From: "Newsgroups" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: DL in Global Address Book Does anybody know how to monitor the DL in the Global Address List? Basically I want to know if a DL is being used at all. The only thing I can think of is by adding myself to that DL and I don't want to do that. Thanks Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
DL in GAL how not to publish?
MSX2000+SP3 1 forest multiple W2K-AD domains (A+B+C+D)+ each domain has one MSX2000+SP3 Is there anyway to let a DL created in Domain A to behaves like this in the GAL a) not viewable from other domains (only from users in domain A) b) viewable just for some users in domain A and some others in Domain B. thanks, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: IS 70GB and growing....
What some more news about PST's, and OST's with outlook 11 --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, Exchange MVP, And Beyond -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of MATTSON, Winston Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 3:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing pst. bad news... don't tell us anymore... its killing me! -Original Message- From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 9 October 2002 07:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing pst b - Original Message - From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:45 PM Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > Our Mail server is 5 years old, has 1100 mailboxes and not one is over > 120megs thanks to storage limits. Anyone who complains saves anything > critical to a fileserver or a pst. The system works great. > > -Original Message- > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:43 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > And you are praying for the day when it blows up? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea > Coppini > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 04:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > About 60% of our users have mailboxes over 200Mb. > > 1 beats the rest downright... His mailbox size is 2.6Gb. > > -Original Message- > From: Sakti Chakravarty (Senteq) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 7:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > 140MB is big, but it's not uncommon to see mailboxes greater than 1GB > in size. > > -Original Message- > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, 8 October 2002 1:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > Do you think 140MB mailbox is big?!?! > The exchange server is 3 years old > > - Original Message - > From: "Hansen, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 6:08 PM > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > I'd be more tempted to look at things like storage limits. 500 > > users and 70gig, seriously who needs to save that much email? Your > > email shouldn't > be > > a file server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 3:12 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > Would be tempted to look at things like restore time SLA, backup > > window time etc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mark Hanji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Posted At: 04 October 2002 09:36 > > Posted To: Exchange List > > Conversation: IS 70GB and growing > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > I am reading all this thread, and still can't find which part made > > you > > > so angry. > > > > How should the question be asked, so you would be so nice, to > > provide some information.. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:25 AM > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > Heaven help him. > > > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > > Technical Consultant > > > hp Services > > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark > > > Hanji > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:00 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > It may be some one you know. > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:39 PM > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > Heaven help the consultant Hanji hires. > > > > > > > > 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 Great > > Cthulhu > > > > > > > Jones > > > > Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:01 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: IS 70GB and growing > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote Hanji hires a consultant to fix the problem. He's not > > > > showing much improvement... > > > > > > > > (:= > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]O
RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox
Hi Paul. I'm Fioon, as many O as you like to have. Is the "bare metal restore" you mention below is also from Veritas ? Thanks -Original Message- From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 4:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox Fiona, Don't go for the Veritas IDR solution. I have just installed it and we are using it because it given to us by Veritas with netbackup. All it does is an automated Windows NT/2000 MS install and at the end runs a GUI program to do a restore. A total waste of time to install a OS (about a hour or so) just to have it overwritten with the restore. There new replaement software they have just bought off another compkany called 'bare metal restore' seems to be a MUCH MUCH better product. Cheers Paul Standards are like toothbrushes, everyone wants one but not yours -Original Message- From: Glenn Corbett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 07 October 2002 12:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox Fioon, call you Veritas representative and ask for an evaluation copy of the IDR (strange that there isnt an eval version, they have evals of all the other options). I've used both, and the Veritas solution is superior in every way to Arcserve (at least once CA got hold of it). Glenn - Original Message - From: "Fioon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:57 PM Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > Hi Ed Crowley, > > You've got so much experience, would you like to have a few comment on > ArcServe & Veritas ? > I've tested on the ArcServe 's DR on a testing server,it's work fine. Would > like to test on Veritas, but unfortunately they dont provided any DR > evaluation copy, so i can't evaluate on that. I wonder how good is Veritas's > IDR. I've heared so many bad comments of ArcServe here, which make me > confuse . ..& worry. > > Now i'm can only test on the Veritas Normal Backup. > > Your advice is highly appreciately > Thanks > Fion > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:46 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > BLB = Brick Level Backup, or backup of individual mailboxes. > SMR = I am guessing that this is Single Mailbox Restore. > > 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 Fioon > Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 9:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > Hei, > > Recently have interested in Veritas, but quite new. May i know what is > BLB & SMR guys referring to ? Thanks > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:11 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > > Thank you very much. > > Fortunately, I'm not using BLB. I'll proceed with my SMR. If I can't > get it back through agents tab, I'll try the decoder and/or mdbvue . > I'll let you know how I made out. > > Thanks again, > Louise > > -Original Message- > From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:58 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > It's been quite a while when I was playing with this stuff and I > remember that it is not trivial. > > Let's see what I can remember... The Exchange 5.5 Scripting agent script > itself is stored as a hidden item in the folder it is applied to (in > your case: the particular mailbox on Server A). Another second config > item, also hidden, is created on the server the script is supposed to be > executed (in your case Server B) in the system folder Event_Config (or > similar - can't remember the correct name unfortunately). > > So, if you just want to get the script code back then try to restore the > whole mailbox store on a recovery server [1] and use either a debugging > tool [2] or try to connect with Outlook and see if you can get it via > the Agents tab. > > [1] Note that if you use BLB [3] you might not be able to restore > Scripting Agents. Only if you use an Exchange backup aware product to do > a full IS backup/restore you have a chance. [2] Either MicroEye > ScriptDorector > (http://www.microeye.com/scriptdirector) or the Microsoft Agent Editor > (used to be in the Exchange 5.5 SDK or BackOffice Resource Kit 4.5) or > plain mdbvu32.exe (comes with Exchange on the setup CD). But the latter > needs to be used CAREFULLY. [3] BLB => Brick Level Backup like it is > offered with ArcServe, Veritas and other backup software. > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exc
RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox
Arcserve is generally very poorly regarded in the Exchange community because of buggy software and poor technical support. About all I can say about them is that I got them to work once. Edgar J. Crowley Jr. Technical Consultant Windows & Messaging Platforms Practice hp Services *510-612-3365 *[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Fioon Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox Hi Ed Crowley, You've got so much experience, would you like to have a few comment on ArcServe & Veritas ? I've tested on the ArcServe 's DR on a testing server,it's work fine. Would like to test on Veritas, but unfortunately they dont provided any DR evaluation copy, so i can't evaluate on that. I wonder how good is Veritas's IDR. I've heared so many bad comments of ArcServe here, which make me confuse . ..& worry. Now i'm can only test on the Veritas Normal Backup. Your advice is highly appreciately Thanks Fion -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 1:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox BLB = Brick Level Backup, or backup of individual mailboxes. SMR = I am guessing that this is Single Mailbox Restore. 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 Fioon Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 9:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox Hei, Recently have interested in Veritas, but quite new. May i know what is BLB & SMR guys referring to ? Thanks -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 1:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox Thank you very much. Fortunately, I'm not using BLB. I'll proceed with my SMR. If I can't get it back through agents tab, I'll try the decoder and/or mdbvue . I'll let you know how I made out. Thanks again, Louise -Original Message- From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox It's been quite a while when I was playing with this stuff and I remember that it is not trivial. Let's see what I can remember... The Exchange 5.5 Scripting agent script itself is stored as a hidden item in the folder it is applied to (in your case: the particular mailbox on Server A). Another second config item, also hidden, is created on the server the script is supposed to be executed (in your case Server B) in the system folder Event_Config (or similar - can't remember the correct name unfortunately). So, if you just want to get the script code back then try to restore the whole mailbox store on a recovery server [1] and use either a debugging tool [2] or try to connect with Outlook and see if you can get it via the Agents tab. [1] Note that if you use BLB [3] you might not be able to restore Scripting Agents. Only if you use an Exchange backup aware product to do a full IS backup/restore you have a chance. [2] Either MicroEye ScriptDorector (http://www.microeye.com/scriptdirector) or the Microsoft Agent Editor (used to be in the Exchange 5.5 SDK or BackOffice Resource Kit 4.5) or plain mdbvu32.exe (comes with Exchange on the setup CD). But the latter needs to be used CAREFULLY. [3] BLB => Brick Level Backup like it is offered with ArcServe, Veritas and other backup software. > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 8:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Recovering an Event Script from a Mailbox > > Hi all, > > I'm hoping you can assist me in just how to recover an event script that > is > associated with a particular mailbox. It seems the script just > disappeared and the developer did not have a copy. > > The mailbox sits on server A and the script was added to it through the > Agents tab. The script executes on Server B. Presently, I'm making an > assumption that restoring the mailbox from server A, I should also get the > script. > > Is this correct? > > Thanks in advance, > Louise > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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: mai
RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment
We are also using Groupshield 4.5 and it is working fine with client using Mcafee Virus Scan which is automatically update by our ftp server. Irfan -Original Message- From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 3:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment We use Groupshield 4.5 (engine 4.1.6) and so far I haven't seen any virus passing through . Its updated to their latest DAT i.e. 4227 . We also block VBS, EXE, SCR, PIF (as defaulted at the time of installation). Kishore -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment I run Groupshield 4.5 (Engine 4.1.60) and it works fine. Haven't seen a single instance of Bugbear penetrate. We do block the common extensions (VBS, EXE, SCR, PIF, etc.) and that helps a bunch. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: Julian Stone > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2002 08:28 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment > > Here we go again > > My 2 penneth > > <1>Dump Groupshield > <2>Install Sybari (my preference) or Trend<2> > > Yours, > > Julian Stone > > > -Original Message- > From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 08 October 2002 14:24 pm > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: W32/Bugbear@MM - No File Attachment > > > Dear DL Members, > > At Wawa, on the Exchange Servers, we are running GroupShield > 4.0.4. The Scan Engine (4160) and DAT files (4227) are up to date. > > GroupShield is detecting and quarantining the W32/Bugbear@MM > virus, as long as the infected e-mail message has an actual file > attachment. If the infected e-mail message does not have a file > attachment, GroupShield is not detecting it, thus we have some PCs and > Laptops that get infected, and our Network Printers and Shared Printers > print off over 100 pages of garbled text. > Common to these e-mail messages with not files attachments is, > they are all HTML (as opposed to Rich Text or Plain Text). > > Is anyone else with GroupShield experiencing this problem? > > What are you doing, to the Exchange Servers, to fix this? > > I can open these e-mail messages from my Laptop, which has the > latest version of the Scan Engine and DAT files, without getting > infected. Having the client Scan Engine and DAT files is a solution, and > we are working on it. > > Let me know. > Thanks. > > > Rob Garrish > Exchange Administrator > Wawa Inc. > 610-558-8371 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.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]
