Inside Exchange Public Folders Chat (As Seen at TechEd!)
Inside Exchange Public Folders (As Seen at TechEd!) http://communities2.microsoft.com/home/chatroom.aspx?siteid=3415 Have questions on using public folders, how they work or how to handle co-existence with Exchange 5.5? Join Microsoft experts as they tackle these and other questions related to how email is sent to a folder and client referrals to other public folders and how it will improve your ability to deploy, support and administer public folder infrastructures. You bring the questions, and our experts from the Exchange Product Group and the Exchange Product Support Services team will provide the answers! June 18, 2003 1:00 - 2:00 P.M. Pacific time 4:00 - 5:00 P.M. Eastern time 20:00 - 21:00 GMT 21:00 - 22:00 BST Event Reminders Outlook: Add to Calendar http://www.microsoft.com/technet/downloads/vcs/Exchange_June18.vcs ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
Really? I'd just delete their account from the network if it was internal email, or I'd block their whole domain if it was external. We have rules here against that kind of abuse. -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 June 2003 16:32 To: Exchange Discussions There may be something like this, but I will tell you this. If someone did that to me I would just set up a rule to permanently delete all of their messages. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport Reply To: Exchange Discussions Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject:Strange Question My boss asked me this morning. Is there any type of program or something that if you send someone an email, it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes until they respond to you? He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the discussion about the behavoral issues etc. Avi We run exchange 2k and outlook client _ Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director Star Supply Co. 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode =la ng=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Exchange2000] FW: Alert: Exchange 2000 Store Shuts Down After NAI AV Software Update
Here's NAI's answer on this: Dear Customer, The following is a status update regarding the STORE.EXE termination issue on the Microsoft Exchange 2000 platform. Information circulated by Microsoft internally has indicated that McAfee updates for the latest virus DAT files were the cause of the STORE.EXE termination. There is no correlation between the current McAfee DAT files and the STORE.EXE termination issue. Root cause analysis done at McAfee indicates the issue is with a message that has a very long sender name (511 characters). This issue was first seen late last year and was resolved in HotFix 2 for McAfee GroupShield 5.2 for Microsoft Exchange 2000. All customers who have seen this issue would be running a GroupShield service version of less than 5.20.677.0. This can be verified through the GroupShield Exchange Manager | configuration | properties | version tab. We have posted Hotfix 2 for McAfee GroupShield Exchange 5.2 and this is currently available on our support service portal at: http://mysupport.nai.com Users should login to the PrimeSupport KnowledgeCenter Service Portal and navigate to: Hotfix Patch List for McAfee Security Products | GroupShield HotFixes |NAI28995:HotFix 2 for GroupShield 5.2 for Exchange 2000 There is also a TechNote article posted in the NAI mysupport.com Knowledge Base: reference nai31469. Thank you, Network Associates -Original Message- From: Dryden, Karen Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Exchange2000] FW: Alert: Exchange 2000 Store Shuts Down After NAI AV Software Update I just talked to NAI support and this is not an issue with any particular dat file, it's an issue with GroupShield 5.2 for Exchange 2000 in general, so if you already have GS installed and haven't had this problem, there's no need to rush out and install HF2 now. -Original Message- From: Alice Goodman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Exchange2000] FW: Alert: Exchange 2000 Store Shuts Down After NAI AV Software Update I don't use it. I use Trend. Just forwarding this email that I got from someone at Microsoft. :) Alice -Original Message- From: Jennifer Fountain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Exchange2000] FW: Alert: Exchange 2000 Store Shuts Down After NAI AV Software Update How do you like groupshield for exchange 2k? -Original Message- From: Alice Goodman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:53 PM To: Exchange2000 - Yahoo (E-mail) Subject: [Exchange2000] FW: Alert: Exchange 2000 Store Shuts Down After NAI AV Software Update Importance: High Problem Applying the latest DAT file from NAI (McAfee) causes the Exchange 2000 Store to terminate and customer will be unable to remount. Customers should be aware that the latest DAT file from NAI requires NAI's Hotfix 2 (HF2) prior to applying the latest DAT file. If the customer applies the DAT file without applying the Hotfix from NAI first, their Exchange Stores may terminate. All versions of Exchange 2000 are potentially at risk although Microsoft has not seen issues outside of North America at this time. Resolution / Call to Action *Ensure you have the latest patches (HF2) from NAI prior to applying the latest DAT file from NAI. Determining if Hotfix 2 is installed On the version tab of the NAI console, the last three digits should be 677. If not, you are not running HF2. Contacts for NAI NAI has asked that we funnel all customers through the following two people at this time. *The US contact for NAI is Brad Gable ( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) *The Europe/Middle East/Africa contact for NAI is Kevin Gudgion ( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) If you are already experiencing the problem, please contact NAI or Microsoft PSS immediately. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange 2000 FAQ: http://www.exchange-mail.org/faq.html Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange 2000 FAQ: http://www.exchange-mail.org/faq.html Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange 2000 FAQ: http://www.exchange-mail.org/faq.html Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Looking for the latest Free IT White Papers? Visit SearchSecurity.com to access over 500 white papers. Get instant access at SearchSecurity.com Today
Mailbox permissions
Hi all, I am trying to grant someone the permission to access another mailbox via the recipient property sheet, but the mailbox permissions are not available for some reason. Any ideas? I am using Win2k server with Exchange 5. Thanks in advance _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mailbox permissions
Ignore this guys. Thanks -Original Message- From: Mustafa Ibrahim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 June 2003 11:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mailbox permissions Hi all, I am trying to grant someone the permission to access another mailbox via the recipient property sheet, but the mailbox permissions are not available for some reason. Any ideas? I am using Win2k server with Exchange 5. Thanks in advance _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mailbox permissions
From within the Exch Admin gui? Tools/Options/Permissions - Original Message - From: Mustafa Ibrahim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:48 AM Subject: Mailbox permissions Hi all, I am trying to grant someone the permission to access another mailbox via the recipient property sheet, but the mailbox permissions are not available for some reason. Any ideas? I am using Win2k server with Exchange 5. Thanks in advance _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
Actually it comes out to be about twice the size of the mailbox. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd
5. Did you see those great new Messageware OWA products 4. Where can I get one of those kewl MEC'Ed VIP shirts ;-) -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 6. Just how many Exchange Administrators does it take to fill Room D171/175 ? Or, lets see what happens when we schedule our most popular Exchange sessions in the smallest rooms? This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com - Original Message - From: Anthony Sollars [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 7. Is that a Blackberry in your pocket, or are you just happy to be here? Anthony L. Sollars Technology Consultant Information Technology Division, PACCAR Inc. 480 Houser Way, Renton Wa., 98055 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( 425.254.4845 ) 425.681.4190 2 425.793.6000 -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions 8. Wanna see my new Pocket PC ? - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 9. What the hell died in there? -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions 10 Is an 8-node Active Exchange 2003 cluster supported under VMWare on Windows XP ? - one attendee joking ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the deltas are synched. And 225MB? How much time would that take to transfer over a typical corporate network? 100Mb/S? -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
Well, I don't have 100Mb/S to my house (assuming you are talking about MAPI/HTTP, however it is a very cool feature and 225MB is not a huge mailbox. So, yes the whole 225MB is brought down, and depending on your new-mail traffic (ie. how many of these lists you are on) you may see some initial sync delays each startup. -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the deltas are synched. And 225MB? How much time would that take to transfer over a typical corporate network? 100Mb/S? -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
David, So I take it this rule would be set on something like a sender or the importance set on an email? -Original Message- From: David J. Culliton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If the explanation is correct - why not a rule that pops a dialog box on the desktop informing of the important email? -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Thanks, but for whatever reason this is what he is on now. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question If it's so urgent why is he sending it via e-mail. Why not just call? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I envision a solution like this: Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever) where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a flag (flat file, database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? -Original Message- From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Lol. Good answer Andy. -Original Message- From: Andy David
Attachments Doubling in Size ?
Hi, Yesterday an attachments of 5.6 megs was sent in from an external person. That attachment, once sent on from one of these users to another person, doubled in size. The attachment the user originally received all of a sudden was 13 megs and the sent attachment was also 13 megs. This happened with 3 users I know of. All of them exist on the same storage group and they have different levels of Outlook 2002 (either SP1 or SP2). I am running Exchange 2k clustered and the eventvwr is clean. I have researched on TechNet and it seems this used to be something with OWA. Has anyone else run into this issue before and if so what was your resolution? Thanks in advance, Erik L. Vesneski Sr. Systems Specialist ISO - Intel Systems Ph#: 925-685-6161 www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
-Original Message- From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 June 2003 14:28 To: Exchange Discussions Well, I don't have 100Mb/S to my house (assuming you are talking about MAPI/HTTP, however it is a very cool feature and 225MB is not a huge mailbox. So, yes the whole 225MB is brought down, and depending on your new-mail traffic (ie. how many of these lists you are on) you may see some initial sync delays each startup. But of course if you are working from home with O2002 using an OST you still have this problem when sync-ing a large mailbox for the first time, and so on, so its not like its going to get worse. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College print chr(66) chr(79) chr(70) chr(72) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Searching User Mailboxes
Chuck Wagon! I know wrong thread but until someone nominates me to the proper place this is all I've got. ;-) -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes You have to be THIS tall to ride the... Oh, wait - wrong thread :) -Original Message- From: Van Hooser, Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions But does it come with Scharff in box? Chuck -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Check out both Sherpa Software and KVS. For companies for which potential litigation is a problem and extended retention policies make more sense than trying to restore x hundred tapes for compliance, I think KVS is probably a better long term solution. Sherpa is probably better for companies with shorter retention policies (generally) IMO. OT: Congrats on the fastest drag time. :) -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:25 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Searching User Mailboxes Subject: Searching User Mailboxes Does anyone know of a product that will crawl and index mailboxes on Exchange 5.5? I know Sharepoint and Index Server will do Public Folders, but I haven't heard of anything that will do mailboxes. Mainly, I am thinking, as there is no account that has permissions on all mailboxes by default . . . We are being subpoena for all emails from X years past dealing with X subject . . . Anyone know of one? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
I think this is the best option thus far. Showed it to him and he seems pleased with it but still can't tell me what he will be using this for. Any way to have this automatically set like every time he sends a message it will automatically include a follow up prompt let's say every 20 minutes after the email is sent? I am beginning to believe my boss is a spammer. Avi -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Have the boss just set the reminder flag for Follow up on the e-mail with the date/time for 20 minutes hence. It should pop up if the other guy is using Outlook. -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I envision a solution like this: Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever) where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a flag (flat file, database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? -Original Message- From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 30 seconds until he replies about you getting a raise. -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
is that because it accounts for both the .edb and .stm files? :) -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 Actually it comes out to be about twice the size of the mailbox. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Replicating Public folder
Hi, How do I trigger or schedude the public folder replication between EX5.5 and E2K vise versa without the ADC in placed? The reason I'm asking is because we used DiscussData product for the migration, and by using this product it's not require to have ADC installed, and they don't have a schedule mechanism, the only way to do this is to manually run it. We still have both sites running with a trust in between, and this causing alot of problems for users on both sides to setup calendar(out of sync). Any idea? Thanks!!! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Searching User Mailboxes
Do you have something in your eye? - Original Message - From: Van Hooser, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Chuck Wagon! I know wrong thread but until someone nominates me to the proper place this is all I've got. ;-) -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes You have to be THIS tall to ride the... Oh, wait - wrong thread :) -Original Message- From: Van Hooser, Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions But does it come with Scharff in box? Chuck -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Check out both Sherpa Software and KVS. For companies for which potential litigation is a problem and extended retention policies make more sense than trying to restore x hundred tapes for compliance, I think KVS is probably a better long term solution. Sherpa is probably better for companies with shorter retention policies (generally) IMO. OT: Congrats on the fastest drag time. :) -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:25 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Searching User Mailboxes Subject: Searching User Mailboxes Does anyone know of a product that will crawl and index mailboxes on Exchange 5.5? I know Sharepoint and Index Server will do Public Folders, but I haven't heard of anything that will do mailboxes. Mainly, I am thinking, as there is no account that has permissions on all mailboxes by default . . . We are being subpoena for all emails from X years past dealing with X subject . . . Anyone know of one? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Marshall users
You who - used it and it was great. Lot of work up front however. Thank you, Erik L. Vesneski Sr. Systems Specialist ISO - Intel Systems Ph#: 925-685-6161 www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mail Marshall users Sorry for the semi off topic post. Would anyone who is the administrator of a Mail Marshall service, please contact me off list. I'm looking for some real - world information about it's operation and reliability. Thanks. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mail Marshall users
I found it very good, nice to get real-time mail scanning off the exchange server. Version 1 was abit ugly but once the GUI version came out much easier to use. Configuration easy if your business rules for mail handling are already agreed on. -Original Message- From: Erik L. Vesneski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 June 2003 15:02 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Mail Marshall users You who - used it and it was great. Lot of work up front however. Thank you, Erik L. Vesneski Sr. Systems Specialist ISO - Intel Systems Ph#: 925-685-6161 www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Mail Marshall users Sorry for the semi off topic post. Would anyone who is the administrator of a Mail Marshall service, please contact me off list. I'm looking for some real - world information about it's operation and reliability. Thanks. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** This correspondence is confidential and is solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this correspondence from your system and notify the sender immediately. No warranty is given that this correspondence is free from any virus. In keeping with good computer practice, you should ensure that it is actually virus free. E-mail messages may be subject to delays, non-delivery and unauthorised alterations therefore, information expressed in this message is not given or endorsed by Sx3 unless otherwise notified by our duly authorised representative independent of this message. Sx3 is a trading name of Service and Systems Solutions Limited, a limited company registered in Northern Ireland under number NI 32979 whose registered office is at 120 Malone Road, Belfast, BT9 5HT. ** _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries. -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the deltas are synched. And 225MB? How much time would that take to transfer over a typical corporate network? 100Mb/S? -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I dont believe its enabled by default. - Original Message - From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries. -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the deltas are synched. And 225MB? How much time would that take to transfer over a typical corporate network? 100Mb/S? -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
The local cache file would be associated with the user profile. Are you concerned that if I log into your PC I can get to your email by searching under C:\Documents and Settings\Mwoodruff\Juicy_OST_File ? -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries. -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Only the initial synchronization would take time. After that, only the deltas are synched. And 225MB? How much time would that take to transfer over a typical corporate network? 100Mb/S? -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Replicating Public folder
I believe the InterOrg tool from Microsoft replicates free/busy data. -Original Message- From: Pham, Tuan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:59 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Replicating Public folder Subject: Replicating Public folder Hi, How do I trigger or schedude the public folder replication between EX5.5 and E2K vise versa without the ADC in placed? The reason I'm asking is because we used DiscussData product for the migration, and by using this product it's not require to have ADC installed, and they don't have a schedule mechanism, the only way to do this is to manually run it. We still have both sites running with a trust in between, and this causing alot of problems for users on both sides to setup calendar(out of sync). Any idea? Thanks!!! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd
So you spent time with AB, eh? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Mark Jeremy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 8. *snore* *mumbling..* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 9. What the hell died in there? -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions 10 Is an 8-node Active Exchange 2003 cluster supported under VMWare on Windows XP ? - one attendee joking ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Searching User Mailboxes
Yes a duck is pecking my eye out! -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Searching User Mailboxes Do you have something in your eye? - Original Message - From: Van Hooser, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Chuck Wagon! I know wrong thread but until someone nominates me to the proper place this is all I've got. ;-) -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes You have to be THIS tall to ride the... Oh, wait - wrong thread :) -Original Message- From: Van Hooser, Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions But does it come with Scharff in box? Chuck -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Check out both Sherpa Software and KVS. For companies for which potential litigation is a problem and extended retention policies make more sense than trying to restore x hundred tapes for compliance, I think KVS is probably a better long term solution. Sherpa is probably better for companies with shorter retention policies (generally) IMO. OT: Congrats on the fastest drag time. :) -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:25 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Searching User Mailboxes Subject: Searching User Mailboxes Does anyone know of a product that will crawl and index mailboxes on Exchange 5.5? I know Sharepoint and Index Server will do Public Folders, but I haven't heard of anything that will do mailboxes. Mainly, I am thinking, as there is no account that has permissions on all mailboxes by default . . . We are being subpoena for all emails from X years past dealing with X subject . . . Anyone know of one? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode = lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: replication issue
No the 2nd server joined the site flawlessly. There are no problems with name resolution (as MS suggested) and just to be sure of this I did add each machine to the HOSTS file. This error doesn't occur until replication of the server's user objects start. Permissions, connectors and all others are successful. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
It could be a lot bigger - public folder favorites are also stored locally. -Original Message- I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. Reviewing GFI Mail Essentials v8 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
'tis too, at least in current builds. AFAIK, it will remain default in later builds too. - Original Message - I dont believe its enabled by default. - Original Message - From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries. Reviewing GFI Mail Essentials v8 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
That is where the OS2k3 resource kit comes in. Build a custom installation and you have the ability to turn it off as the default. Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Diane Poremsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:27 To: Exchange Discussions 'tis too, at least in current builds. AFAIK, it will remain default in later builds too. - Original Message - I dont believe its enabled by default. - Original Message - From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries. Reviewing GFI Mail Essentials v8 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
Yer right. I just created a new profile and the box is checked. At least you can uncheck it if desired before you actually finish creating the profile g - Original Message - From: Diane Poremsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 'tis too, at least in current builds. AFAIK, it will remain default in later builds too. - Original Message - I dont believe its enabled by default. - Original Message - From: Woodruff, Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:07 AM Subject: RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 I wasn't thinking of the bandwidth side, that's not a problem. Is the local copy enabled by default? Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good design. I was just thinking about using different profiles on the same PC. If you can disable it, then no worries. Reviewing GFI Mail Essentials v8 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd
if you know the answer to #4 let me know as all my exchange buddies want one . . . Chris - Original Message - From: Mark Rotman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:24 AM Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 5. Did you see those great new Messageware OWA products 4. Where can I get one of those kewl MEC'Ed VIP shirts ;-) -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 6. Just how many Exchange Administrators does it take to fill Room D171/175 ? Or, lets see what happens when we schedule our most popular Exchange sessions in the smallest rooms? This mailbox protected from junk email by Matador from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com - Original Message - From: Anthony Sollars [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:28 PM Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 7. Is that a Blackberry in your pocket, or are you just happy to be here? Anthony L. Sollars Technology Consultant Information Technology Division, PACCAR Inc. 480 Houser Way, Renton Wa., 98055 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( 425.254.4845 ) 425.681.4190 2 425.793.6000 -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:17 PM To: Exchange Discussions 8. Wanna see my new Pocket PC ? - Original Message - From: Martin Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: RE: Top 10 things overheard at TechEd 9. What the hell died in there? -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions 10 Is an 8-node Active Exchange 2003 cluster supported under VMWare on Windows XP ? - one attendee joking ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Q302254 Virtual Memory
Could some one please clarify an issue for me. I am running E2k sp3 on W2k server SP3. A few days ago everyone was complaining that Outlook was locking up. I found the the Virtual memory was down to about 4. Over night I restarted the exchange server and everything seems to be normal again. I found Q302254 which at the bottom has this note: IMPORTANT: Note that it is not recommended that you run Windows 2000 Server with anything more than 2 GB of memory (that is, do not use the /3GB switch), when you are running Exchange 2000 because anything over that amount is unused. If the Store.exe process runs out of virtual address space, the memory is all on the server. To get the best use out of the added memory, run Windows 2000 Advanced Server, not Windows 2000 Server. The /3GB switch has advantages only when you use it on a Windows 2000 Advanced Server-based computer. On the exchange server I have 2.5 gigs of memory I do not have the /3GB switch set in the boot.ini file. Does this note mean that I should not use more than 2 gigs of memory? Or is it okay to have more but not to use the /3GB switch? Does Microsoft recommend taking memory out of my server? Jeffrey Witt System Administrator Huf North America Work: (414) 365-8146 Mobile: (262) 227-1719 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Your thinking is right on the money. If someone POPs their mail to a local PC and opens a virus, chances are that virus is going to head straight for the user OL contacts or the GAL. No way do we allow POP mail access. -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Searching User Mailboxes
I get that a lot too -Original Message- From: Van Hooser, Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 12/06/2003 16:40 To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Yes a duck is pecking my eye out! -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Searching User Mailboxes Do you have something in your eye? - Original Message - From: Van Hooser, Chuck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Chuck Wagon! I know wrong thread but until someone nominates me to the proper place this is all I've got. ;-) -Original Message- From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes You have to be THIS tall to ride the... Oh, wait - wrong thread :) -Original Message- From: Van Hooser, Chuck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions But does it come with Scharff in box? Chuck -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:14 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Searching User Mailboxes Check out both Sherpa Software and KVS. For companies for which potential litigation is a problem and extended retention policies make more sense than trying to restore x hundred tapes for compliance, I think KVS is probably a better long term solution. Sherpa is probably better for companies with shorter retention policies (generally) IMO. OT: Congrats on the fastest drag time. :) -Original Message- From: Chris H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:25 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Searching User Mailboxes Subject: Searching User Mailboxes Does anyone know of a product that will crawl and index mailboxes on Exchange 5.5? I know Sharepoint and Index Server will do Public Folders, but I haven't heard of anything that will do mailboxes. Mainly, I am thinking, as there is no account that has permissions on all mailboxes by default . . . We are being subpoena for all emails from X years past dealing with X subject . . . Anyone know of one? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode = lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface:
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
We block POP access as we have an SMTP gateway scanner scanning for virus's and spam. -Ryan N. Ryan Fennema, MCSE Network Administrator X-Rite Incorporated - Grandville, MI Phone: (616) 257-2165 Fax: (616) 257-2165 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.XRite.com -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Depends on your company and what they need. Here: If it's E-Mail and if it does pass thru my Trend box first then to my Exchange box I don't allow it...Yes that includes Web based e-mail accounts too...I block all that too... IM blocked toomost downloading also...my list goes on but that's just here...I've been other place where its a free for alldepends on the company.. if they don't think of it as job security 0.02 bill -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2003 Beta 2
I love the feature and I think your remote users will too. I was getting way tired of having Outlook hang when I accidentally selected a message with a large attachment and Oulook tried to retireve it for viewing in the preview pane. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook 2003 Beta 2 I have a question about the whole cached mode deal. Does it keep an exact replica of your mailbox that is stored on the server? If mine mailbox is 225MB then the local ost would also be 225MB? If so, that sucks. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
Just tell him no. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Question My boss asked me this morning. Is there any type of program or something that if you send someone an email, it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes until they respond to you? He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the discussion about the behavoral issues etc. Avi We run exchange 2k and outlook client _ Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director Star Supply Co. 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
I suggested it first :) in my Use the flag message -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I think this is the best option thus far. Showed it to him and he seems pleased with it but still can't tell me what he will be using this for. Any way to have this automatically set like every time he sends a message it will automatically include a follow up prompt let's say every 20 minutes after the email is sent? I am beginning to believe my boss is a spammer. Avi -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 3:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Have the boss just set the reminder flag for Follow up on the e-mail with the date/time for 20 minutes hence. It should pop up if the other guy is using Outlook. -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:49 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question I was explained that it is more for urgent email from certain people. Like if the owner emailed to my boss something that needed to be done it would pop up in his mail box vs. someone sending him an idiotic joke. To me it just seems like a crutch for someone who isn't doing their work in keeping up with email if that is part of their responsibilities. I am not to know the true reason behind this, for whatever secretive reason, I know I know how ridiculous and how can I give someone what I don't know they want, but alas, this is where I am asking for advice for the gurus. You guys read minds right? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question As with many things, it all comes back to Ed C.'s quote. The bigger question for Avi to pose to his boss is what is to be accomplished here? Is it to track that a user is sitting at his/her desk? To ensure that emails get read? To ensure that tasks get done within 20 minutes? What is the business goal that is to be accomplished? Mebbe there is a better solution that can be offered instead of an email kludge. -Original Message- From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I envision a solution like this: Boss points browser to a web server with a CGI app (perl, vb, whatever) where he enters a recipient (or picks a pre-entered recipient - that would help ensure it wasn't abused) and types his message. This app sends the message (via CDO or SMTP) and creates a flag (flat file, database record, etc) that records the time sent and the recipient. The app appends a URL to another app that the recipient clicks on to acknowledge the message. This deletes the flag. Yet another app (not web based, but scheduled to run every few minutes) checks for flags and resends reminders. -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Alright... That didn't go over so well. He is sticking to his guns and is throwing this into the mix. 2 willing participants. Meaning, let's say that Erik decides he will accept this type of request from me so if I choose to I can send him an email and mark it, respond in 20 min, then if he doesn't respond in 20 minutes to me then it will re-email, or pop up a window on his pc whatever. The two willing participants definitely seems more like something, no? It seems to me like when he gets and email from certain people he wants it to go to some reminder type of a system although the sender is the person that would set the reminder intervals. confused? Avi -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? Can we go to mount Splashmore? -Original Message- From: Steck, Herb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Then tell him you will send him pages every 2 minutes, then call on his cel phone every minute, then send him a fax every 30 seconds until he replies
RE: Q302254 Virtual Memory
I think /3GB switch should be used if you have 1GB RAM or more. However it is only applicable on Advanced Server. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey G. Witt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Q302254 Virtual Memory Could some one please clarify an issue for me. I am running E2k sp3 on W2k server SP3. A few days ago everyone was complaining that Outlook was locking up. I found the the Virtual memory was down to about 4. Over night I restarted the exchange server and everything seems to be normal again. I found Q302254 which at the bottom has this note: IMPORTANT: Note that it is not recommended that you run Windows 2000 Server with anything more than 2 GB of memory (that is, do not use the /3GB switch), when you are running Exchange 2000 because anything over that amount is unused. If the Store.exe process runs out of virtual address space, the memory is all on the server. To get the best use out of the added memory, run Windows 2000 Advanced Server, not Windows 2000 Server. The /3GB switch has advantages only when you use it on a Windows 2000 Advanced Server-based computer. On the exchange server I have 2.5 gigs of memory I do not have the /3GB switch set in the boot.ini file. Does this note mean that I should not use more than 2 gigs of memory? Or is it okay to have more but not to use the /3GB switch? Does Microsoft recommend taking memory out of my server? Jeffrey Witt System Administrator Huf North America Work: (414) 365-8146 Mobile: (262) 227-1719 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PF hierarchy replication - was:RE: Question about public folders
Another weird thing. We basically have two PF servers. One of them (the original) has full hierarchy. Another one only has partial hierarchy and no matter what we do is not getting full hierarchy. What could be causing this? -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Question about public folders Right Click Database and look at the box that says default public folder server. -Original Message- From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Hi all, I need a brain refresh... here is the scenario: there is an Exchange 2000 server (server A) that only holds users' maiboxes, it does not have a PF store. there are two Exchange 2000 servers (server C and server D) with PF stores. All the servers are in the same Admin group and in the same Routing group. A user whose mailbox is on server A sends a message to a mail-enabled public folder. The message always wants to be delivered to server B (according to message tracking). How does Exchange decide which PF server to deliver message to? Is it supposed to be random or is there some preference set up somewhere? Thanks, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging Collaboration Spherion Corporation P.S. the real kicker is that server B does not have a replica of that mail-enabled PF. Only server C has it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Strange Question
Ed, I appreciate the kind thoughts and straightforward attitude. Believe it or not I used your quote and then he backed himself into a corner and got defensive. Think the flag for follow up will make him happy though. Avs -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Strange Question Just tell him no. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Avi Smith-Rapaport Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange Question My boss asked me this morning. Is there any type of program or something that if you send someone an email, it will resend the email let's say every 20 minutes until they respond to you? He has not told me why he wants this and I did have the discussion about the behavoral issues etc. Avi We run exchange 2k and outlook client _ Avi Smith-Rapaport / MIS Director Star Supply Co. 1040 State Street * New Haven, CT 06511 Voice: 203.772.2240 * Fax: 203.865.7827 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: additional display name?
I've long thought Exchange (and now AD) needs an alias object type for just this kind of purpose. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Morrison, Gordon Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: additional display name? Does anyone know of a way to have both a maiden name and married name appear as distinct display names in the OAB, yet have them both point to the same account? E2ksp3 Thanks, Gordon ___NOTICE_ This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain Company shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client contract. ___ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: additional display name?
Yep been getting alot of those as of late. From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: additional display name? Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 11:38:25 -0700 I've long thought Exchange (and now AD) needs an alias object type for just this kind of purpose. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Morrison, Gordon Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 1:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: additional display name? Does anyone know of a way to have both a maiden name and married name appear as distinct display names in the OAB, yet have them both point to the same account? E2ksp3 Thanks, Gordon ___NOTICE_ This electronic mail transmission contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other person is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy the message. Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain Company shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by the Company. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail is subject to the terms and conditions in the governing client contract. ___ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Thanks for all the replies. Death to POP!!! (evil laugh Ha. Ha. Ha. .) Matt -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Your thinking is right on the money. If someone POPs their mail to a local PC and opens a virus, chances are that virus is going to head straight for the user OL contacts or the GAL. No way do we allow POP mail access. -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
[bad grade-school joke] Q: What goes, Ha ha ha...plop, Ha ha ha...plop, Ha ha ha...plop? A: Someone laughing their head off! [\bad grade-school joke] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Thanks for all the replies. Death to POP!!! (evil laugh Ha. Ha. Ha. .) Matt -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Your thinking is right on the money. If someone POPs their mail to a local PC and opens a virus, chances are that virus is going to head straight for the user OL contacts or the GAL. No way do we allow POP mail access. -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
We allow pop, but utilize sendmail for SMTP. Then we have a service for spam and virus protection, and then we have virus protection on the server as well. Does that help at all? John Parker, MCSE IS Admin. Senior Technical Specialist Digital Display Systems. Alpha Video Be excellent to each other ---End of Line--- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PF hierarchy replication - was:RE: Question about public fold ers
guess what - duplicate SMTP addresses caused this. Just mere existence of them. -Original Message- From: Fyodorov, Andrey Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: PF hierarchy replication - was:RE: Question about public folders Another weird thing. We basically have two PF servers. One of them (the original) has full hierarchy. Another one only has partial hierarchy and no matter what we do is not getting full hierarchy. What could be causing this? -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Question about public folders Right Click Database and look at the box that says default public folder server. -Original Message- From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Hi all, I need a brain refresh... here is the scenario: there is an Exchange 2000 server (server A) that only holds users' maiboxes, it does not have a PF store. there are two Exchange 2000 servers (server C and server D) with PF stores. All the servers are in the same Admin group and in the same Routing group. A user whose mailbox is on server A sends a message to a mail-enabled public folder. The message always wants to be delivered to server B (according to message tracking). How does Exchange decide which PF server to deliver message to? Is it supposed to be random or is there some preference set up somewhere? Thanks, Andrey Fyodorov Systems Engineer Messaging Collaboration Spherion Corporation P.S. the real kicker is that server B does not have a replica of that mail-enabled PF. Only server C has it. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: RUS problems
Put the DLL file back until you can find out why it's still looking for it. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Woodruff, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: RUS problems Sure, but where does it go? The event doesn't have a path or anything to the file I am missing. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Hmm... We had a similar problem with Faxmaker, although one of our servers in Boston had it previously. If you want, I can send you the DLL it is looking for so it will shut up. :-) Might not figure out why it's doing it, but it will make the RUS work again. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Yeah, it is not present in any of them. -Original Message- From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Did you check all of your recipient policies? It doesn't need to be checked, just present to hose it up. -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Well I rebooted the server and the RUS stamped the new users. That's great. It starting to break again today. Now I am seeing an event ID: 2035 (Q286356)which is pointing at a FAXMAKER address type. Faxmaker doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for a year or so now. Why it is just now popping up I don't know. I have looked and this address type doesn't exist anywhere. I used ADSI to check everywhere that this type could exist... Nothing. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions There were issues with the system attendant's detection logic that could potentially result in stuck threads, causing issues such as the RUS not stamping addresses. I don't recall seeing that myself, but a system attenant service cycle is a quick and free sanity check before calling PSS! Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:56 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Nope Not yet. I am going to reboot tonight. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Out of interest, have you at any point cycled the System Attendant service on your E2k box? Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:41 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems I checked all of this. I don't get any errors in the application log except the one mentioned. Everything is set to maximum logging. I'm stuck. -Original Message- From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Four common ways the RUS can break: These are the most common ways that the RUS can break: 1) RUS configuration references a deleted DC or E2K server, or the servers defined in RUS configuration are flakey at best. Browse both entries and choose alternates, if available. 2) Inheritable permissions are removed on an OU and the RUS is no longer able to reach the objects within it. (Q297124) 3) RUS is unable to generate email addresses because it is unable to locate a third party email address generator (DLL file). This can occur in mixed environments where an Exchange 5.5 server had fax software or the like installed. Exchange 2000 builds its recipient policies based on Ex55 site addressing (which includes the third party address). Since the DLL does not exist on the E2K server used by the RUS, the RUS will fire Event IDs 2035, 2037, and 2027 if MSExchangeAL logging is set to max. (Q286356) 4) If the RUS encounters a distribution list that has its membership hidden, it will not be able to stamp it with mail attributes and will go to sleep. (Q287137) Neil -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: 09 June 2003 15:03 Posted To: Swynk Exchange List Conversation: RUS problems Subject: RE: RUS problems Yeah, I have the correct server selected. I have also tried another in the same site. This is definitely weird. No errors at all. I might need to consult PSS on this one. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Ali Wilkes (IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions It's a silly question, I know, but did you make sure the RUS is pointing to the correct (and
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe:
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
I think the original question must have related to POPing out for personal mail, because otherwise the normal attachment stripping would occur. Clearly if you're just popping into your regular Exchange mailbox, you're just as protected from viruses as you are accessing it any other way. -Peter -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other company do? Is there some other way to secure incoming POP mail? Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ:
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
The reason I asked the original question is because I work at a .EDU All mail goes to a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address on a central campus server. From there people either have their mail forwarded to their department mail server like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my exchange server) address or use POP to down load their mail from the campus server. I have been trying to get management to force everyone to go through my exchange server so my firewall can strip all those bad attachment types. As it is a virus can sneak into my network with an attachment through POP. All my anti-virus software is set to update daily but if a new virus is able to make it in via POP before my anti-virus software updates. BAM lots and lots of work :( Matt -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? I think the original question must have related to POPing out for personal mail, because otherwise the normal attachment stripping would occur. Clearly if you're just popping into your regular Exchange mailbox, you're just as protected from viruses as you are accessing it any other way. -Peter -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This might be more appropriate for a firewall/security list but it involves email and I don't belong to one of those yet so I'll post my question here. I'm curious as to how many of your companies allow internal clients to access POP mail externally. The reason I'm asking is because I see POP mail as security risk. Let me explain. Our firewall strips all but a few attachments from our incoming SMTP email. With POP however attachments cannot be striped leaving a hole for new virus that aren't detectable yet by our virus software. I'm going to try to talk management into letting me block POP. Is blocking incoming POP something other
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
That clarifies it, and I know it is difficult to do the right thing when supporting a University. So you *were* talking about staff POPping your mail from the Exchange server. Eat that, Ed! [1] You may be able to propose a compromise: - All SMTP mail must be delivered to the Exchange server and be AV scanned. - Disallow file types that are commonly used to send virusesiises. The Martin Blackstone list in Appendix F of the FAQ may help here. Can I assume that if these people are using University computers, they have University-installed and -managed AV software running on them? That may also mitigate the virus risk and provide another level of protection. - Allow IMAP instead of POP? [1] Totally kidding!! -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions The reason I asked the original question is because I work at a .EDU All mail goes to a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address on a central campus server. From there people either have their mail forwarded to their department mail server like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my exchange server) address or use POP to down load their mail from the campus server. I have been trying to get management to force everyone to go through my exchange server so my firewall can strip all those bad attachment types. As it is a virus can sneak into my network with an attachment through POP. All my anti-virus software is set to update daily but if a new virus is able to make it in via POP before my anti-virus software updates. BAM lots and lots of work :( Matt -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? I think the original question must have related to POPing out for personal mail, because otherwise the normal attachment stripping would occur. Clearly if you're just popping into your regular Exchange mailbox, you're just as protected from viruses as you are accessing it any other way. -Peter -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Didn't he say that everyone downloads from his Exchange server? Then what's the problem? All mail comes to the Exchange server first, right? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? That clarifies it, and I know it is difficult to do the right thing when supporting a University. So you *were* talking about staff POPping your mail from the Exchange server. Eat that, Ed! [1] You may be able to propose a compromise: - All SMTP mail must be delivered to the Exchange server and be AV scanned. - Disallow file types that are commonly used to send virusesiises. The Martin Blackstone list in Appendix F of the FAQ may help here. Can I assume that if these people are using University computers, they have University-installed and -managed AV software running on them? That may also mitigate the virus risk and provide another level of protection. - Allow IMAP instead of POP? [1] Totally kidding!! -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions The reason I asked the original question is because I work at a .EDU All mail goes to a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address on a central campus server. From there people either have their mail forwarded to their department mail server like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my exchange server) address or use POP to down load their mail from the campus server. I have been trying to get management to force everyone to go through my exchange server so my firewall can strip all those bad attachment types. As it is a virus can sneak into my network with an attachment through POP. All my anti-virus software is set to update daily but if a new virus is able to make it in via POP before my anti-virus software updates. BAM lots and lots of work :( Matt -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? I think the original question must have related to POPing out for personal mail, because otherwise the normal attachment stripping would occur. Clearly if you're just popping into your regular Exchange mailbox, you're just as protected from viruses as you are accessing it any other way. -Peter -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt
RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003
I think the big benefit for anyone to upgrade from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2003 would be those who have extensive branch offices; the benefits of the cached mode will help performance with a centralized Exchange Server architecture greatly. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Yes, that may be true. But my E2K server is very stable itself, and the benefits of upgrading don't seem much to someone who doesn't need the ability to download your mailbox to your desktop. Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 Exchange2003 RC1 has proven to be more stable at Microsoft that Exchange2000 sp3 From a session at TechEd. All but 1 server at Microsoft have been migrated to Exchange2003. That's almost 80,000 mailboxes. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions I agree, especially with the Road Warriors comment. Unfortunately, we don't have any road warriors for the City, as we allow OWA to be used, and the connection speed for that is just fine for everyone; or so they say. I will probably wait to upgrade to Exchange 2003 for at least a year, let everyone else work out the bugs :) Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA WAN/Internet Specialist 913-339-6700 x194 -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Why would I want to go to Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003 -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 15:52 To: Exchange Discussions Good morning, Surely you are laughing by now. But my management team wants to know why I want to spend all of this money for Exchange 2003/Outlook 2003. I mean we are currently on Outlook 98 and Exchange 5.5. How do I justify the expense and get it in the budget for 2004. Help!!! What would these do that your current system doesn't do (easy enough to figure out) that you will need / want to do in future (not so easy)? How important is continued support from Microsoft to you? Do you have a lot of road warriors or people on remote sites with relatively slow links? Are you running Windows 2000 or 2003 active directory? If so then it makes good sense not to have to maintain 2 user directories and upgrading to a newer version of exchange would enable this. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Best Practices for Exchange2K Implementation
If you can put these users on an Exchange 2003 Server with Outlook 11, they can run in cached mode, and may reduce your need to distribute Exchange servers. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gagrani, Kishore Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Best Practices for Exchange2K Implementation Hi all, We are a small company but spread out offices all around. I wonder what would be a justified number of users (mailboxes) to host a exchange server (Exchange 2K-SP3 ) in a remote office. Does anyone use MAPI client over internet to connect to exchange server ? Are there any recommended settings in Outlook (Outlook-2000) to minimize the network traffic (specially for those who are on dial-up internet access) ? I would really appreciate any feedback in this regard. Thank you in anticipation, Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Recovery Help. Request made from a new Exchange Admin.
Download this, print, read, understand and live this: http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/techinfo/administration/55/BackupRestore.a sp You should build a recovery server with the same version, service pack and patch level as when the backup was taken. (I hope you have appropriate logs to determine this!) Uild this server with Exchange, building a new organization and site but specifying the exact same--including upper and lower case letters--organization and site names as the server from which the backup was taken. Then do your restore, and, if necessary, use Outlook to copy the data to a PST and from the PST to whatever production mailbox you want. You should then periodically rebuild this recovery server in a similar fashion and use it to test your restores on a periodic basis. You can even run ISINTEG and ESEUTIL on them for validation and testing purposes. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of labigdawrg Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recovery Help. Request made from a new Exchange Admin. Thank you to Samantha for the kind words and to the warm welcome from the guy whose knowledge on the subject resulted in no help at all. I specifically asked within my post if what my thought process at the time was logical and could result in a solution or should I build another Exchange server. If you read the first part of the message, I clearly stated that it was my second day on the job. I understand that a DR environment is necessary but was not available and to give a little more information I was not looking for anyone to do my job but rather some direction since the 2yr data that needed to be retrieved was for litigation purposes and should have been done weeks earlier prior to my new responsibility. Add to that that there is no DR environment and that the email backups take place on a remote server that is not running Exchange then maybe you can see my dilemma. But I thought at the time that I did not need to include all of this because I did not care to waste anyone's time. I may have experience in an area where one day you may need assistance and just a note to let you know that I will assist to a degree if I can but I will not waste your time with such comments as the ones you gave. I am not upset about it but rather request that if you want to respond to a post then how about trying to help rather than possibly waste the author's time as well with hollow words? LABD _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Friday Haiku
Not one of those is haiku. Count your syllables. They are not five-seven-five. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Mynhier Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 9:02 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Friday Haiku What have I learned here? I need a wireless toy No, not one like that I want to check mail While sitting in a session I want better toys Drunk geeks aren't pretty Not enough girls for them all They need cold showers Walking around here All these Exchange Guru shirts Most cannot spell it Some sessions were good Other sessions were long naps I still hate clusters. stemy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Being a home and road office worker with DSL, I've really come to love Outlook 11 and Exchange 2003, both of which, by the way, are required to make the cache mode (Use local copy) work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Actually cache mode works fine with Exchange 5.5 (I'm using it that way home and office) and Exchange 2000. You just are restricted to Full Items sync when you do it that way. Exchange 2003 is required to support drizzle mode (Headers and then Full Items). Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 13:38 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Being a home and road office worker with DSL, I've really come to love Outlook 11 and Exchange 2003, both of which, by the way, are required to make the cache mode (Use local copy) work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Yeah, it's largely transparent. The old way requires a little too much attention from users. I disliked having to synchronize all the time, so I've never used it regularly. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Actually cache mode works fine with Exchange 5.5 (I'm using it that way home and office) and Exchange 2000. You just are restricted to Full Items sync when you do it that way. Exchange 2003 is required to support drizzle mode (Headers and then Full Items). Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 13:38 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Being a home and road office worker with DSL, I've really come to love Outlook 11 and Exchange 2003, both of which, by the way, are required to make the cache mode (Use local copy) work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Then in this case I would say it does not matter whether they POP, PIP, or personally imbibe it, IF your exchange server's AV signature doesn't catch the Virus, the client will get it. All the mails go through your Exchange server. Concentrate your efforts on making your AV work better on the server, and stop worrying about a non-issue. HTH Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE MCSA MCP+I www.akomolafe.com www.iyaburo.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Plahtinsky Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? The reason I asked the original question is because I work at a .EDU All mail goes to a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address on a central campus server. From there people either have their mail forwarded to their department mail server like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my exchange server) address or use POP to down load their mail from the campus server. I have been trying to get management to force everyone to go through my exchange server so my firewall can strip all those bad attachment types. As it is a virus can sneak into my network with an attachment through POP. All my anti-virus software is set to update daily but if a new virus is able to make it in via POP before my anti-virus software updates. BAM lots and lots of work :( Matt -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? I think the original question must have related to POPing out for personal mail, because otherwise the normal attachment stripping would occur. Clearly if you're just popping into your regular Exchange mailbox, you're just as protected from viruses as you are accessing it any other way. -Peter -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day all their email is gone. Now you could restore from backup which = man-hours or you could have the guy bring in his machine and copy all the data from it which = man hours. However if you are running Exchange this Marketing guy could have accessed via OWA or VPN, or even if you were not using Exchange VPN or some 3rd Party web tool.. In other words Pop = Bad Joshua Joshua Morgan Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? List, This
RE: Outlook 11
That's one long outlook. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Outlook 11 One and the same. Outlook10 = Outlook2002. Outlook9=Outlook2000 Outlook12=Outlook2006 - Original Message - From: Pham, Tuan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Outlook 11 Sorry I have to ask, what is Outlook 11? Is that outlook 2003? Thnx! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
remote mail options
We have Exchange 2000 and use OWA (SBS2000). Is there any way to setup Outlook to access exchage info remotely. Such as a POP type connection? If a computer is connected to an NT Domain (the remote office) and then connects to the SBS2000 server via VPN, can I then just plug in the exchange server info in Outlook? I know you cannot connect another Domain to SBS2000 but was wounder if there is a better way to access email from a small remote office. Thanks! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 11
They skip 13. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Etie Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions That's one long outlook. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Outlook 11 One and the same. Outlook10 = Outlook2002. Outlook9=Outlook2000 Outlook12=Outlook2006 - Original Message - From: Pham, Tuan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Outlook 11 Sorry I have to ask, what is Outlook 11? Is that outlook 2003? Thnx! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good?
Ok Im getting tired and its late and I've been here at work since 8:00am. I'm going to try one more time to clear this up. Campus email servers are OpenBSD something or other. They forward mail to my exchange server via SMTP. (not the problem) Users inside my firewall that don't use my exchange server get their mail from the main campus OpenBSD email server via POP. (the problem) Therefore bypassing my ability to strip there harmful attachments. Matt -Original Message- From: deji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 11:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Then in this case I would say it does not matter whether they POP, PIP, or personally imbibe it, IF your exchange server's AV signature doesn't catch the Virus, the client will get it. All the mails go through your Exchange server. Concentrate your efforts on making your AV work better on the server, and stop worrying about a non-issue. HTH Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE MCSA MCP+I www.akomolafe.com www.iyaburo.com Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about Yesterday? -anon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Plahtinsky Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 3:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? The reason I asked the original question is because I work at a .EDU All mail goes to a [EMAIL PROTECTED] address on a central campus server. From there people either have their mail forwarded to their department mail server like [EMAIL PROTECTED] (my exchange server) address or use POP to down load their mail from the campus server. I have been trying to get management to force everyone to go through my exchange server so my firewall can strip all those bad attachment types. As it is a virus can sneak into my network with an attachment through POP. All my anti-virus software is set to update daily but if a new virus is able to make it in via POP before my anti-virus software updates. BAM lots and lots of work :( Matt -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? I think the original question must have related to POPing out for personal mail, because otherwise the normal attachment stripping would occur. Clearly if you're just popping into your regular Exchange mailbox, you're just as protected from viruses as you are accessing it any other way. -Peter -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 14:04 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Allowing employees to POP personal mail? Hmmm I didn't see that in the question but it's als a bad idea... -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions I believe the question here was specifically whether to allow internal POP clients to pull their mail (personal, presumably) from outside sources. To that, I would agree it is a very poor idea to allow that. As to whether to allow POP usage from outside, I would also agree that allowing it is a poor idea, but there are ways to make it not so poor. Even though it is primative, POP is still a protocol that is necessary for clients running on non-Windows platforms. You can configure Exchange 2000 to support only POP with SSL, somewhat reducing the vulnerability, or, better yet, allow it only through a VPN. Still, I would be encouraging such users to try to use IMAP instead, but it is not without its risks as well. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: POP = Bad? -- SMTP = Good? Mmmm. Man hours. Presumably since you are posting to an Exchange list, you are running Exchange. If you just want a POP server you have wasted your money. If remote access is an issue, set up OWA. If virusesiises are an issue, run AV software on your Exchange boxes. -Original Message- From: Joshua R. Morgan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions I agree with you from a Security Standpoint that POP has certain risks, but maybe a better topic for management is the additional headache POP is from a support standpoint.. Imagine if you will a Marketing person gets a new machine at home, this person sets up outlook to download via POP3, instead of choosing to leave the messages on the server they opt to download everything and remove (could be a simple mistake) however when they come into work the next day
RE: Outlook 11
Who wouldn't? -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 11 They skip 13. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Etie Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions That's one long outlook. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Outlook 11 One and the same. Outlook10 = Outlook2002. Outlook9=Outlook2000 Outlook12=Outlook2006 - Original Message - From: Pham, Tuan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:15 AM Subject: Outlook 11 Sorry I have to ask, what is Outlook 11? Is that outlook 2003? Thnx! _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
