RE: TONS of NDR's
You don't have to read slashdot to know that. I had to apply special rules to get rid of this mailbox polution. Spammers have found my domainname to be interesting as From: they make up names in the form or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know ppl who had to give up the use of their domainname because it was impossible to use it anymore. In the past I have complained but it seems that several ISP's are forwarding the message resulting in more and more NDR's. B. At 08:52 19-12-2003 -0600, you wrote: You obviously read Slashdot.org Eric Fretz -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your servers as a relay) but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged From: address. 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! _ 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: TONS of NDR's
For those wondering. It's actually from South Park Season 3. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of B. van Ouwerkerk Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 11:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You don't have to read slashdot to know that. I had to apply special rules to get rid of this mailbox polution. Spammers have found my domainname to be interesting as From: they make up names in the form or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know ppl who had to give up the use of their domainname because it was impossible to use it anymore. In the past I have complained but it seems that several ISP's are forwarding the message resulting in more and more NDR's. B. At 08:52 19-12-2003 -0600, you wrote: You obviously read Slashdot.org Eric Fretz -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your servers as a relay) but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged From: address. 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! _ 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: TONS of NDR's
You've lost me. The only South Park I ever heard of is a comedy. I hope you don't find it fun that ppl are getting NDR's because spammers feel like forging the FROM. B. At 23:56 21-12-2003 -0800, you wrote: For those wondering. It's actually from South Park Season 3. _ 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: TONS of NDR's
In the original post Erik Sojka wrote: 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! The #4 and #5 items were from a bit from the TV show South Park. The next post from Eric Fretz, said You obviously read Slashdot.org. That saying from South Park has been making the rounds on there lately. You responded with the You don't have to read slashdot to know that reply. I was just clearing that up. No I don't think it's fun that spammers are forging FROM address, but what are you going to expect from a 20+ year old protocol that wasn't designed to verify who the sender is? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of B. van Ouwerkerk Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You've lost me. The only South Park I ever heard of is a comedy. I hope you don't find it fun that ppl are getting NDR's because spammers feel like forging the FROM. B. At 23:56 21-12-2003 -0800, you wrote: For those wondering. It's actually from South Park Season 3. _ 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: TONS of NDR's
No I don't think it's fun that spammers are forging FROM address, but what are you going to expect from a 20+ year old protocol that wasn't designed to verify who the sender is? There is no way you can reliably check who the sender is. At least not without modifying the protocol. That would take quite some time. It would help if ISP's would disallow their customers to send mail directly without going through their mailservers. If I look at the headers of the spam I get it seems to be coming via open relays and open proxies. Mail usually seems to come from US government (Marines/Navy/etc) or from IP ranges not in use. I don't believe the US government is spamming.. So there is no real way to catch the person sending the spam. If a spammer feels the need to spam they should at least be decent enough to use their own domain name. B. _ 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]
Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
Actually, Ed answered your question (the answer is no, it can't be done natively) and offered a suggestion for solving your issue. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 8:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Why not ban him? Surely there is a anti-spam filter on this list? This person seems to be interested in 'stoking' the fires of a few so confrontation may incur. Erik L. Vesneski Intel Lead - WCDC/ISO www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, for some reason beyond my comprehension people seem to have this odd fascination with my views on ethics in IT. They are so fascinated that every time I post something to this list, they bring it up. In the interests of trying to move past this, you can get your fix of my crazed views on ethics in the form of a free monthly newsletter, The IT Ethics Newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.infonition.com/ethics I have not yet covered the Conflict of Interest topic but I'm sure that it will come up eventually. Until then, here is how I see the two sides. Greg: Accepting direct gifts from third parties, especially significant gifts such as large dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived conflict of interest between an IT professional's client (either the customer or company that he or she works for) and that third party. This is why companies have limits on the type and dollar amount of gifts that employees can accept from third parties. Because MVP is primarily a title and titles are priceless, there are obvious grounds for a potential conflict of interest. And it does not matter if the conflict of interest is real or perceived. The whole point of ethics and conflict of interest rules is to help keep people from getting into ethical trouble and to remove even the specter or impropriety. The Other Side: The MVP title is not unethical. In fact, it does not matter what you do or who you accept gifts from or what the type or dollar amount of those gifts, it will never, ever constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, there is really no such thing as a conflict of interest. This whole conflict of interest nonsense is, in fact, an evil plot propagated by the secretive Illuminati. Obviously, the Illuminati have corrupted Greg's brain and the brains of all of the corporations that have rules against accepting gifts. Don't become another victim! Even if God himself comes down and points out that something is obviously a potential conflict of interest, argue with God because the Illuminati have obviously gotten to him. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Ban him? Why? I hold him single handedly responsible for this lists entertainment value surpassing that of its technical value. -heath -Original Message- From: Erik L. Vesneski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Why not ban him? Surely there is a anti-spam filter on this list? This person seems to be interested in 'stoking' the fires of a few so confrontation may incur. Erik L. Vesneski Intel Lead - WCDC/ISO www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, for some reason beyond my comprehension people seem to have this odd fascination with my views on ethics in IT. They are so fascinated that every time I post something to this list, they bring it up. In the interests of trying to move past this, you can get your fix of my crazed views on ethics in the form of a free monthly newsletter, The IT Ethics Newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.infonition.com/ethics I have not yet covered the Conflict of Interest topic but I'm sure that it will come up eventually. Until then, here is how I see the two sides. Greg: Accepting direct gifts from third parties, especially significant gifts such as large dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived conflict of interest between an IT professional's client (either the customer or company that he or she works for) and that third party. This is why companies have limits on the type and dollar amount of gifts that employees can accept from third parties. Because MVP is primarily a title and titles are priceless, there are obvious grounds for a potential conflict of interest. And it does not matter if the conflict of interest is real or perceived. The whole point of ethics and conflict of interest rules is to help keep people from getting into ethical trouble and to remove even the specter or impropriety. The Other Side: The MVP title is not unethical. In fact, it does not matter what you do or who you accept gifts from or what the type or dollar amount of those gifts, it will never, ever constitute a conflict of interest. Furthermore, there is really no such thing as a conflict of interest. This whole conflict of interest nonsense is, in fact, an evil plot propagated by the secretive Illuminati. Obviously, the Illuminati have corrupted Greg's brain and the brains of all of the corporations that have rules against accepting gifts. Don't become another victim! Even if God himself comes down and points out that something is obviously a potential conflict of interest, argue with God because the Illuminati have obviously gotten to him. _ 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: TONS of NDR's
My comment was about his 1,2,3 Profit! Method. That joke has been endlessly run on slashdot.org postings lately. True, I think that original 1,2,3 Profit! Joke came from Southpark, but I got it from slashdot. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You don't have to read slashdot to know that. I had to apply special rules to get rid of this mailbox polution. Spammers have found my domainname to be interesting as From: they make up names in the form or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know ppl who had to give up the use of their domainname because it was impossible to use it anymore. In the past I have complained but it seems that several ISP's are forwarding the message resulting in more and more NDR's. B. At 08:52 19-12-2003 -0600, you wrote: You obviously read Slashdot.org Eric Fretz -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your servers as a relay) but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged From: address. 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? This is just what I don't need in a vendor. Someone who believes he's always right, and if he is going to have a fight with his customers, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Walker, Heath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Ban him? Why? I hold him single handedly responsible for this lists entertainment value surpassing that of its technical value. -heath -Original Message- From: Erik L. Vesneski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Why not ban him? Surely there is a anti-spam filter on this list? This person seems to be interested in 'stoking' the fires of a few so confrontation may incur. Erik L. Vesneski Intel Lead - WCDC/ISO www.pmigroup.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics OK, for some reason beyond my comprehension people seem to have this odd fascination with my views on ethics in IT. They are so fascinated that every time I post something to this list, they bring it up. In the interests of trying to move past this, you can get your fix of my crazed views on ethics in the form of a free monthly newsletter, The IT Ethics Newsletter. Details can be found at http://www.infonition.com/ethics I have not yet covered the Conflict of Interest topic but I'm sure that it will come up eventually. Until then, here is how I see the two sides. Greg: Accepting direct gifts from third parties, especially
RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
I saw that delay in the early beta versions of Outlook 2003. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
Isn't that the idea of a cached mode of operations? Operate directly off the local OST file and poll the server now and again to download any newly arrived messages to the local file? If there is a problem, just untick the cached mode and run it directly from the server. Regarding the Can it be changed, I'm not sure, but probably, either through the menus or through a registry hack. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:53 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Subject: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
Was RC1 standard and the RTM Enterprise? -Original Message- From: Patrick Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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]
Problems with NLB, OWA and Exchange
Running Exchange 2000 native on W2K Servers both with SP3 installed. Running 2 Front-end 2 back-end servers with Network Load Balancing on the front-ends. We are experiencing a problem with one of the front-ends servers - that will not even start up the basic services. Contact Microsoft, who had us re-install SP3 later SP4 without any success in getting the services started. We also, un-install NLB and re-installed it without any success. Our next actions is just to rebuild the system from scratch. Has anyone came across any problems like the above? Ron Pennell _ 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: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
Well from my basic understanding of the cached mode mechanism I thought that when it detected that it was connected through to the server on a fast LAN link then it would act like a non-cached client. I was hoping for a registry hack but haven't found anything as of yet on Microsoft's site or elsewhere. Thanks for replying. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: 22 December 2003 14:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Isn't that the idea of a cached mode of operations? Operate directly off the local OST file and poll the server now and again to download any newly arrived messages to the local file? If there is a problem, just untick the cached mode and run it directly from the server. Regarding the Can it be changed, I'm not sure, but probably, either through the menus or through a registry hack. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:53 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Subject: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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] The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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: TONS of NDR's
Funny turn of events, I was running down remote users and veryifying strong passwords when the manager of sales comes in and someone text messaged his phone with his domain password. interesting. -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's My comment was about his 1,2,3 Profit! Method. That joke has been endlessly run on slashdot.org postings lately. True, I think that original 1,2,3 Profit! Joke came from Southpark, but I got it from slashdot. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You don't have to read slashdot to know that. I had to apply special rules to get rid of this mailbox polution. Spammers have found my domainname to be interesting as From: they make up names in the form or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know ppl who had to give up the use of their domainname because it was impossible to use it anymore. In the past I have complained but it seems that several ISP's are forwarding the message resulting in more and more NDR's. B. At 08:52 19-12-2003 -0600, you wrote: You obviously read Slashdot.org Eric Fretz -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your servers as a relay) but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged From: address. 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! _ 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: TONS of NDR's
Would be a nice feature in 5.5 if I could turn off NDR's to the internet or on specific users. -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You don't have to read slashdot to know that. I had to apply special rules to get rid of this mailbox polution. Spammers have found my domainname to be interesting as From: they make up names in the form or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know ppl who had to give up the use of their domainname because it was impossible to use it anymore. In the past I have complained but it seems that several ISP's are forwarding the message resulting in more and more NDR's. B. At 08:52 19-12-2003 -0600, you wrote: You obviously read Slashdot.org Eric Fretz -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your servers as a relay) but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged From: address. 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! _ 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: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
Nope. In cached mode the user always directly reads from the local store, which is updated as needed when a network connection is connected. If the design goal was to read from the server in all network situations and go offline when the network was unavailable, they wouldn't have changed that mode of operation from previous versions of Exchange/Outlook... -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Well from my basic understanding of the cached mode mechanism I thought that when it detected that it was connected through to the server on a fast LAN link then it would act like a non-cached client. I was hoping for a registry hack but haven't found anything as of yet on Microsoft's site or elsewhere. Thanks for replying. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: 22 December 2003 14:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Isn't that the idea of a cached mode of operations? Operate directly off the local OST file and poll the server now and again to download any newly arrived messages to the local file? If there is a problem, just untick the cached mode and run it directly from the server. Regarding the Can it be changed, I'm not sure, but probably, either through the menus or through a registry hack. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:53 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Subject: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul -- -- The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. -- -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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] - --- The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. - --- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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
RE: TONS of NDR's
Thus proving the point that User's are the root of all IT problems! Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's Funny turn of events, I was running down remote users and veryifying strong passwords when the manager of sales comes in and someone text messaged his phone with his domain password. interesting. -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's My comment was about his 1,2,3 Profit! Method. That joke has been endlessly run on slashdot.org postings lately. True, I think that original 1,2,3 Profit! Joke came from Southpark, but I got it from slashdot. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: B. van Ouwerkerk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You don't have to read slashdot to know that. I had to apply special rules to get rid of this mailbox polution. Spammers have found my domainname to be interesting as From: they make up names in the form or [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know ppl who had to give up the use of their domainname because it was impossible to use it anymore. In the past I have complained but it seems that several ISP's are forwarding the message resulting in more and more NDR's. B. At 08:52 19-12-2003 -0600, you wrote: You obviously read Slashdot.org Eric Fretz -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your servers as a relay) but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged From: address. 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) many many many recipients do not exist 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4) ??? 5) profit! _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I can understand that you are obviously too immature to own up to the fact that you are the one that instigates these discussions and then turn around and accuse others of instigating such discussions. I can also understand that when you have nothing to say that you post what you consider to be philosophical or poetic statements when in fact you are posting meaningless dribble that makes you look like an...well, let's just stick with immature. ...makes you look immature. Not only can't you prove the obvious, you can't understand the obvious. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Ed, this is so utterly wrong that it defies all rational thought. Yes, you first stated something along the lines of Why are you asking us vendor wh0res. And I ignored this post and simply asked you to play nice. The thread continued, still largely the topic of migrating from GroupWise 6.5 to Exchange 2000. Then, you posted this next little gem, and I quote: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Now, to this I simply had to respond because this is a blatant mis-characterization of my position. Yes, I believe that accepting titles from vendors is not only wrong, but extremely damaging to the IT community at large in the eyes of the public that we serve. My response to you corrected your mis-characterization of my position and indicated that yes, we have different opinions on this topic, but that we should at least be able to be civil. From this, then, the whole topic disintegrated into misery. Thus, it is a proven FACT that you, not I, started this entire re-hashed discussion about ethics in IT. Could I have ignored your post. Perhaps, but I am simply not going to allow such a blatant mis-characterization of my beliefs to go unchallenged. Now, given these facts, I could easily make the call you a liar. But, I am not going to tell you that. I am going to tell you that you are wrong, because you are and I can prove absolutely that you are wrong. But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, show some civility and not claim that you are *purposefully* posting incorrect and wrong information. Instead, I prefer to believe that you simply are not recollecting things correctly. You brought up the this topic of ethics, you mis-characterized my position, you brought up a discussion now 8 years dead, you kept on hounding me until I was forced to respond. You, you, you and finally, you. It's all you man. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T _ 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Go back to your on-time on-budget 50 user projects, that are done in the most ethical way. From: Greg Deckler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:20:54 -0800 I can understand that you are obviously too immature to own up to the fact that you are the one that instigates these discussions and then turn around and accuse others of instigating such discussions. I can also understand that when you have nothing to say that you post what you consider to be philosophical or poetic statements when in fact you are posting meaningless dribble that makes you look like an...well, let's just stick with immature. ...makes you look immature. Not only can't you prove the obvious, you can't understand the obvious. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 12:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Ed, this is so utterly wrong that it defies all rational thought. Yes, you first stated something along the lines of Why are you asking us vendor wh0res. And I ignored this post and simply asked you to play nice. The thread continued, still largely the topic of migrating from GroupWise 6.5 to Exchange 2000. Then, you posted this next little gem, and I quote: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:52:58 -0800 For those of you who haven't been around, Mr. Greg Deckler has repeatedly broadcast his diatribes that those of us who are MVPs should be likened to employees (his word) of Microsoft and anything we tell you should be considered to be propaganda straight from Bill Gates. Well, my response is the kind of unprofessional response he deserves, having made his bed. Sorry to have troubled the rest of you. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! Now, to this I simply had to respond because this is a blatant mis-characterization of my position. Yes, I believe that accepting titles from vendors is not only wrong, but extremely damaging to the IT community at large in the eyes of the public that we serve. My response to you corrected your mis-characterization of my position and indicated that yes, we have different opinions on this topic, but that we should at least be able to be civil. From this, then, the whole topic disintegrated into misery. Thus, it is a proven FACT that you, not I, started this entire re-hashed discussion about ethics in IT. Could I have ignored your post. Perhaps, but I am simply not going to allow such a blatant mis-characterization of my beliefs to go unchallenged. Now, given these facts, I could easily make the call you a liar. But, I am not going to tell you that. I am going to tell you that you are wrong, because you are and I can prove absolutely that you are wrong. But, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, show some civility and not claim that you are *purposefully* posting incorrect and wrong information. Instead, I prefer to believe that you simply are not recollecting things correctly. You brought up the this topic of ethics, you mis-characterized my position, you brought up a discussion now 8 years dead, you kept on hounding me until I was forced to respond. You, you, you and finally, you. It's all you man. So why did you feel the need to change the thread to post the exact same nonsense you've been spouting all along? Don't say that we keep bringing this up. All I in the second post in the original thread was that I'm a vendor whore. You took over and started with your silly, unjustified position. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T _ 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] _ Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx _ 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: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
Okay that would make sense, but do you think therefore the period that the server is queried can be customised? TIA Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: 22 December 2003 15:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Nope. In cached mode the user always directly reads from the local store, which is updated as needed when a network connection is connected. If the design goal was to read from the server in all network situations and go offline when the network was unavailable, they wouldn't have changed that mode of operation from previous versions of Exchange/Outlook... -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Well from my basic understanding of the cached mode mechanism I thought that when it detected that it was connected through to the server on a fast LAN link then it would act like a non-cached client. I was hoping for a registry hack but haven't found anything as of yet on Microsoft's site or elsewhere. Thanks for replying. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: 22 December 2003 14:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Isn't that the idea of a cached mode of operations? Operate directly off the local OST file and poll the server now and again to download any newly arrived messages to the local file? If there is a problem, just untick the cached mode and run it directly from the server. Regarding the Can it be changed, I'm not sure, but probably, either through the menus or through a registry hack. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:53 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Subject: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul -- -- The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. -- -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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] - --- The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. - --- _
RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
Well, Aanother view might be that the answer was completely apropriate, but your questions was not, as you omitted crucial information aout your office requirements. Merry Christmas Only allowed to use my psychic powers for Good in Pittsburgh Jim H -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
In situations like this, I have told the users that they can only edit document at certain times of the day. For example: User A can only edit from 8:00AM TO 10:00AM, 12:00PM TO 2:00PM. User B can only edit from 10:00AM to 12:00PM, 2:00PM to 4:00PM. Is this a great solution? Hell no. Can I enforce proper behavior? Hell no. While this is a terrible solution, (in my situation) it did get the two user who needed edit right on the document talking to each other when they needed to make changes. For the most part, the users took care of the access issues themselves. Have you looked into MS Word's workgroup features? It seems like there used to be a way to allow workgroup editing on the same document without corrupting each others changes. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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:
RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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] __ This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for
RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
First, I never said I was a master logician. This is simply another in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that proves the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you read, choose to embelish what you read or assume things about what you read. What I said was that I stick to the facts and logic, not that I am a master logician Second, philosophers have been arguing over existence for a long, long time now. And the fact that I exist is pretty evident and obvious to me at least. Finally, I really have no interest in proving the obvious to you or anyone else. It is obvious that computers and technology have become critically important components of everyone's daily lives. It is obvious that the entire recorded history of occupations and public welfare laws in the United States points to the fact that as an occupation becomes increasingly important to the public welfare that licensing and other laws are passed to regulate it's behavior. It is obvious that without self-regulation that these laws will likely be passed by state governments and could be quite restricting and quite harsh. It is obvious that because of the computer industry's rather libertarian bent that we, as independent computer consultants and professionals, have no single voice with which to speak in order to combat laws and regulations that others would pass to regulate us. It is obvious that with self-regulation comes less of a need for government to pass laws and regulations hence keeping government off our backs. Yes Ed, it is obvious that I sit back in my chair with a nice smug smirk plastered right across my face because I know that if you don't like MY ethics, boy are you going to hate the ethics imposed upon you by government. It makes me laugh so hard that because you and others like you will not even admit to a simple, obvious, conflict of interest that you have doomed EVERYONE in IT to ever increasing government regulation. Why do I laugh? Shouldn't I care because I am in IT as well? I laugh because I don't care. I'll find something else to do. I am no crusader and Ed, frankly, people like you are not worth crusading for. In fact, you; in particular Ed, DESERVE to be regulated by the goverment. No, I cannot prove, or simply choose not to do all the work to prove, the obvious. I cannot prove that an apple is red or that the sky is blue or that we live on a planet that orbits a sun. I also cannot prove that either we regulate ourselves or someone else will do it for us. But, just because I cannot prove it does not mean that it is not true or a fact of life. I cannot prove the obvious. Then, contrary to your prior assertions, you are hardly a master logician. If you are not willing to accept the obvious, then I will never be able to prove anything to you. As I recall from my schooling in mathematics, even the obvious must be proved. Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean that it is a truth. Mr. Deckler, I assert that much of what is obvious truth to your mind is not truth in the rest of the world's reality. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 Yes, you are correct Ed. I cannot prove the obvious. I cannot prove that an apple is red or that the sky is blue or that you live on the planet that orbits a sun. If you are not willing to accept the obvious, then I will never be able to prove anything to you. Likewise, and more importantly sinc, you haven't proven your statement true. It is only a real or perceived conflict of interest in your own mind. You haven't proven anything beyond that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T _ 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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
No soup for yougo away! _ John Bowles Exchange Engineer OIG/HHS [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 First, I never said I was a master logician. This is simply another in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that proves the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you read, choose to embelish what you read or assume things about what you read. What I said was that I stick to the facts and logic, not that I am a master logician Second, philosophers have been arguing over existence for a long, long time now. And the fact that I exist is pretty evident and obvious to me at least. Finally, I really have no interest in proving the obvious to you or anyone else. It is obvious that computers and technology have become critically important components of everyone's daily lives. It is obvious that the entire recorded history of occupations and public welfare laws in the United States points to the fact that as an occupation becomes increasingly important to the public welfare that licensing and other laws are passed to regulate it's behavior. It is obvious that without self-regulation that these laws will likely be passed by state governments and could be quite restricting and quite harsh. It is obvious that because of the computer industry's rather libertarian bent that we, as independent computer consultants and professionals, have no single voice with which to speak in order to combat laws and regulations that others would pass to regulate us. It is obvious that with self-regulation comes less of a need for government to pass laws and regulations hence keeping government off our backs. Yes Ed, it is obvious that I sit back in my chair with a nice smug smirk plastered right across my face because I know that if you don't like MY ethics, boy are you going to hate the ethics imposed upon you by government. It makes me laugh so hard that because you and others like you will not even admit to a simple, obvious, conflict of interest that you have doomed EVERYONE in IT to ever increasing government regulation. Why do I laugh? Shouldn't I care because I am in IT as well? I laugh because I don't care. I'll find something else to do. I am no crusader and Ed, frankly, people like you are not worth crusading for. In fact, you; in particular Ed, DESERVE to be regulated by the goverment. No, I cannot prove, or simply choose not to do all the work to prove, the obvious. I cannot prove that an apple is red or that the sky is blue or that we live on a planet that orbits a sun. I also cannot prove that either we regulate ourselves or someone else will do it for us. But, just because I cannot prove it does not mean that it is not true or a fact of life. I cannot prove the obvious. Then, contrary to your prior assertions, you are hardly a master logician. If you are not willing to accept the obvious, then I will never be able to prove anything to you. As I recall from my schooling in mathematics, even the obvious must be proved. Just because something is obvious to you doesn't mean that it is a truth. Mr. Deckler, I assert that much of what is obvious truth to your mind is not truth in the rest of the world's reality. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 Yes, you are correct Ed. I cannot prove the obvious. I cannot prove that an apple is red or that the sky is blue or that you live on the planet that orbits a sun. If you are not willing to accept the obvious, then I will never be able to prove anything to you. Likewise, and more importantly sinc, you haven't proven your statement true. It is only a real or perceived conflict of interest in your own mind. You haven't proven anything beyond that. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T _ 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
RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products=20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations=20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times=20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? This is just what I don't need in a vendor. Someone who believes he's always right, and if he is going to have a fight with his customers, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -Original Message- _ 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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
I cannot prove that an apple is red - well they're not if it's a granny smith nor that the sky is blue - quite often isn't in Blighty! Happy Holidays - Peace and Goodwill to all men eh! ;-) This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
Perhaps you should get a refund on your list subscription fees. -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 15:48 To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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:
RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
But the answer given to you was a solution. It was not one that you agreed with or was suitable for your environment, but it was a solution. -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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:
RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
Jason, Do not anger the Exchange gods. They are vengeful gods. See the thread Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 for examples. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
This is better than the movies! And it's free! -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products=20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations=20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times=20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? This is just what I don't need in a vendor. Someone who believes he's always right, and if he is going to have a fight with his customers, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -Original Message- _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see what he's supposed to be doing. First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending products=20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference, or LUNCH where the vendor presenting paid for the meal, the snacks, the coffee? Second, Greg's list of ethics claim: To disclose any and all influences that may affect our recommendations=20 Greg, does this mean that if I were to speak to you over the phone, you would tell me just how many times your Cisco, Microsoft, Bay Networks, etc., Rep. has called? Or are you saying that you never meet with the vendors to discuss how their products can benefit your customers? Do you ever read trade magazines that discuss the use of one vendors products over another? Will you then tell me all the magazines you read, what date, publication, page number, etc? Third, Greg's list goes on to say: To be fair and accurate when resolving disputes, problems or issues [and] To conduct ourselves in a professional manner at all times=20 One must ask then Greg, exactly how does your statement of: Wrong. You brought it up by throwing stones my way. I don't pick fights, I finish them. work into these statements? This is just what I don't need in a vendor. Someone who believes he's always right, and if he is going to have a fight with his customers, HE'S going to finish it. I can see now why people flock to your organization Greg. The point is, don't say something matters a great deal to you, and then give this list plenty of examples showing that apparently it doesn't. You want to wave a flag around and say I have ethics and yet not live by those same ethics, then be prepared to be inundated with the onslaught. I would trust Ed, Tom, Tony, and even Don, further then I would trust someone yelling about how ethical they are and at the same time say they'll finish any fight. It's time to throttle back now greg, and realize this. You are a Sales Manager for a company that apparently you are supposed to be drumming up business for. Just how much business do you think you have generated on this list after acting in the manner you did? Bob Sadler -Original Message- _ 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: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
Yes, apparently. - Original Message - From: David, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:49 AM Subject: RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 Was RC1 standard and the RTM Enterprise? -Original Message- From: Patrick Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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=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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
If two people make and save changes to the same open document, don't the owners of the PF get a conflict message in their inboxes? -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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
RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
Standard RC1 to Standard RTM ( or Enterprise RC1 to Enterprise RTM) was the only supported path AFAIK. -Original Message- From: Patrick Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 Yes, apparently. - Original Message - From: David, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:49 AM Subject: RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 Was RC1 standard and the RTM Enterprise? -Original Message- From: Patrick Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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=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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
If they do it to two different public folder servers before replication takes place, yes. If they do it to the same PF server, then the last one in wins, iirc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? If two people make and save changes to the same open document, don't the owners of the PF get a conflict message in their inboxes? -Original Message- From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
Eds response was obvious. If you didn't like his answer, you could always pay PSS to answer it for you? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I disagree. I presented a scenario and asked a yes or no question. I supplied enough information for a yes or no answer. I did not ask for assistance with a design or a solution, just a simple question about whether or not Exchange has the capability to do what I asked. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? I think Ed's answer was appropriate given the amount of information you gave out in your first post. Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Posted At: 22 December 2003 15:22 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The document management suggestion was inappropriate because we have a single document that 2 people have modify rights to and another dozen or so people can read. So deploying a DMS is an expensive solution when the problem boils down to preventing 2 people from modifying one particular file at the same time. Especially if there is an inherent method within Exchange to prevent the problem from happening in the first place, which is really all I wanted to know. Thank you for your answer though. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 3:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? The answer was correct. What Ed left out was the No. at the front in answer to your question of whether there is any way to prevent multiple editors of an attachment to a public folder. Did you go look at the 80-20 web site and see what features there product offers? What exactly makes the suggestion of a product which may solve your problem inappropriate? There are also lots of others with different feature sets as Ed alluded. As for little value to the thread, complaining because you didn't get the answer you wanted regardless of the veracity of the answer really has low value. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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
RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode
I believe there is a registry hack for this. There was a KB article describing how to make Outlook check for new mail more often, even when Outlook is running online. Yes, online. This is a special case when Outlook is running behind a firewall that blocks inbound UDP frames (or behind NAT) and prevents Exchange server from sending a new mail notification UDP frame to Outlook (without receiving this frame, Outlook does not know that it is supposed to refresh its view). The same registry hack may just work in your case. Search MS KB for Outlook + UDP + new mail notification. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Okay that would make sense, but do you think therefore the period that the server is queried can be customised? TIA Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: 22 December 2003 15:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Nope. In cached mode the user always directly reads from the local store, which is updated as needed when a network connection is connected. If the design goal was to read from the server in all network situations and go offline when the network was unavailable, they wouldn't have changed that mode of operation from previous versions of Exchange/Outlook... -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Well from my basic understanding of the cached mode mechanism I thought that when it detected that it was connected through to the server on a fast LAN link then it would act like a non-cached client. I was hoping for a registry hack but haven't found anything as of yet on Microsoft's site or elsewhere. Thanks for replying. Paul -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John Matteson Sent: 22 December 2003 14:48 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Isn't that the idea of a cached mode of operations? Operate directly off the local OST file and poll the server now and again to download any newly arrived messages to the local file? If there is a problem, just untick the cached mode and run it directly from the server. Regarding the Can it be changed, I'm not sure, but probably, either through the menus or through a registry hack. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Bendall, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:53 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode Subject: Slightly OT: Outlook 2003 in cached mode I don't know what is happening but I have tried the following on five Exchange 2003 servers using Outlook 2003 in cached mode from default installs. If I use Outlook 2003 on a new mailbox and allow it to sync fully then send a message to myself. It will take approximately 30 seconds to appear in the Inbox. If I remove the tick for Cached Mode in the profile so it is directly linked to Exchange the message appears instantly in the Inbox. It would appear cache mode on Outlook 2003 is polling the server every so often, is this the case? Can it be changed? Anyone else tried this and seen this problem? TIA, Paul -- -- The information contained herein is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access by any other party is unauthorised without the express written permission of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender either via the company switchboard on +44 (0)20 7623 8000, or via e-mail return. If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender. -- -- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm 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:
RE: Problems with NLB, OWA and Exchange
I have been running a back-end with two NLB-ed front-ends for more than 3 years. Never had any problems. NLB does not really interfere with any Exchange stuff. -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Problems with NLB, OWA and Exchange Running Exchange 2000 native on W2K Servers both with SP3 installed. Running 2 Front-end 2 back-end servers with Network Load Balancing on the front-ends. We are experiencing a problem with one of the front-ends servers - that will not even start up the basic services. Contact Microsoft, who had us re-install SP3 later SP4 without any success in getting the services started. We also, un-install NLB and re-installed it without any success. Our next actions is just to rebuild the system from scratch. Has anyone came across any problems like the above? Ron Pennell _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to=20 www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? =20 Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are=20 without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see=20 what he's supposed to be doing. =20 First, Greg's point of vendor conflict is answered here: =20 To never accept compensation from vendors for recommending = products=3D20 =20 One must ask then Greg, have you ever been to a seminar, conference,=20 or LUNCH where the
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
All, Please stop with the rants and raves. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to=20 www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? =20 Well, this character Greg, wants us all to believe his ethics are=20 without question. So, let's take a look at his ethics page and see=20 what he's supposed to be doing. =20
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to=20 www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Dude, STFU. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I starve children. All of that is OK in your whacky bizarro world, but explaining to someone that if you start a fight (in email for Christ's sake) that I will finish that fight. Oh that is TERRIBLE! How could you SAY such a thing. Never mind the liar, stupid, idiot stuff, THAT, sir, is uncalled for. Bob, you amaze me. You know, I'm just as happy to NOT read this dribble, but when someone points out so wonderfully how ethical they are, and we can all go to=20 www.infonition.com/ethics.shtml to prove it, then someone like me just might go there and read, and low and behold what is it we find? =20 Well, this character Greg, wants us all
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I am so very, very touched by your concern. Never fear, I keep such activities as this list well separated from hours billed to clients. Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Since he's only a Sales Manager, I wouldn't think he would have billable hours to clients. It's not like he's an MVP :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I am so very, very touched by your concern. Never fear, I keep such activities as this list well separated from hours billed to clients. Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 _ 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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
In one breath, you claim that you're all about facts and logic. But in the next breath, you admit that you can't prove the obvious. The two statements, at least to me, are incompatible. What I draw from those two statements is that you have opinions you consider to be fact, and are incapable of proving them. The easiest proof, in your mind, is to call them obvious and walk away, which, of course, proves nothing. More comments inline. In summary, Greg, I think you ought to seek professional help. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 First, I never said I was a master logician. This is simply another in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that proves the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you read, choose to embelish what you read or assume things about what you read. What I said was that I stick to the facts and logic, not that I am a master logician See above. Second, philosophers have been arguing over existence for a long, long time now. And the fact that I exist is pretty evident and obvious to me at least. Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Perhaps you might care to explain its relevance to this discussion. Finally, I really have no interest in proving the obvious to you or anyone else. Then you have no grounds assert that what you say is grounded in facts and logic. So I am free to argue that everything you say is grounded in hot air. It is obvious To whom? that computers and technology have become critically important components of everyone's daily lives. I know at least one person who has no computer and derives very little benefit from them. So your point is wrong. It is obvious To whom? that the entire recorded history of occupations and public welfare laws in the United States points to the fact that as an occupation becomes increasingly important to the public welfare that licensing and other laws are passed to regulate it's behavior. That would be its. Again, obvious to whom? It is obvious To whom? that without self-regulation that these laws will likely be passed by state governments and could be quite restricting and quite harsh. This is conjecture, not facts or even logic. It is obvious that because of the computer industry's rather libertarian bent Deckler's rule #53 for arguing: When you can't prove something, give it a label that has all sorts of connotations. Yeah, Microsoft is real libertarian. This supposition shows just how little about computers and the computer industry you really understand. that we, as independent computer consultants and professionals, have no single voice with which to speak in order to combat laws and regulations that others would pass to regulate us. Personally, being that I am a member, the Computer Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers speaks for me. I do not interpret its standards of ethics to read that accepting a small gratuity from a partner company to be a massive conflict of interest. Sorry to bring this argument back on topic, but I felt that you're wandering off in some other direction. It is obvious Again, obvious to whom? that with self-regulation comes less of a need for government to pass laws and regulations hence keeping government off our backs. So, accepting a small gratuity from a partner vendor will cause the government to over-regulate the computer industry? Wow! I never realized the implications. I shall resign my MVP status at once to save the industry! Yes Ed, it is obvious To whom? that I sit back in my chair with a nice smug smirk plastered right across my face You always have that smug smirk. because I know that if you don't like MY ethics, This implies that all of this is obvious to you. Is that what you mean? It isn't obvious to me. Is it obvious to anyone else who might still be reading this thread at this point? boy are you going to hate the ethics imposed upon you by government. Oh my god! Now I'm resigning my MVP status for the good of the country! Maybe I can get some sort of medal for this. It makes me laugh so hard that because you and others like you will not even admit to a simple, obvious, conflict of interest that you have doomed EVERYONE in IT to ever increasing government regulation. You really believe this? Why do I laugh? Because you're insane? Shouldn't I care because I am in IT as well? I laugh because I don't care. I'll find something else to do. I am no crusader and Ed, frankly, people like you are not worth crusading for. In fact, you; in particular Ed, DESERVE to be regulated by the goverment. In other words, we're all damned to hell, but you'll go to heaven. Greg,
RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
Install another domain controller, move all the FSMO roles to it, make it a GC. Retire the original server and rebuild it from scratch properly and move everything back. 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 Patrick Crawford Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Well, here we have an interesting turn of events. I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. Well, ok, then let me re-phrase what I said, and I will make it short and sweet, so your attention span doesn't have a chance to wander. Shut up or leave the list. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So you are going to quibble with things that I said? You people are so whacked out that it is utterly incomprehensible. So where were you when I was called a liar or a wife beater or stupid or idiot or that I
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
: Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Okay, not a Microsoft wh0re. I'm just someone whose shoddy ethics will bring about the end of the computer industry. To set the record straight, I originally characterized myself, not you, a vendor whore. Wouldn't want to limit my income potential, you know. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here, just because you don't like it when someone calls you a stupid fool for not doing your homework before you got here. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before I bring it here. Even then, I don't expect Ed, or the rest, to be nice when it's a stupid ass mistake I made myself and have no one to blame but myself. You don't like the people in this list, change to a different list. But don't complain about the free service you get here,
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered faster if that person would have taken the time to research the question themselves. Sure, I don't like being called Lazy, but I promise, it took only once from ED to make me understand that I better research the hell out of something before
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before posting it to the list. Remember, the people on this list are under ZERO obligation to help you, or anyone else. When they do choose to help, they can save your butt more times then not. But they WILL NOT, nor should the be expected to, put up with damn fools that ask a question that would be answered
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Do'h! Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Since he's only a Sales Manager, I wouldn't think he would have billable hours to clients. It's not like he's an MVP :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I am so very, very touched by your concern. Never fear, I keep such activities as this list well separated from hours billed to clients. Greg, I hope that you are not typing these long marathon e-mail responses on your clients' time. That could be an ethical dilemma. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Actually, I recall (perhaps inaccurately, though) that he claims he was offered an MVP but he refused it. I do not know any actual facts other than his own claims on this matter, however. 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, December 22, 2003 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now
RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
Ed, you apparently have never had children that continually ask why. Why do you exist? Because it is obvious that you exist, you would not be standing here talking to me if you did not exist. Why? Well, because you first have to exist before you can talk. Why? Because otherwise you wouldn't have vocal cords. But why? And no Ed, I am not calling you a child, I am saying that you are acting like a child. Anyone can argue with anything as long as they deny the obvious. I can argue over my own existence and nobody will be able to prove that I exist as long as I want to deny the obvious fact that I exist. This is what you are doing and while you can deny the obvious, it does not mean that the obvious is not true, that you and I both exist and that the IT industry either regulates itself or will be regulated by government. Guess what? I know people that have never used an Auctioneer, but guess what? The Ohio Revised Code has explicit laws and regulations regarding the Auctioneer occupation. I know certain hippies that have never gotten a haircut. Guess what? The Ohio Revised Code has extensive laws and regulations regarding the Barber occupation. There are also laws and regulations for... Architects, Attorneys, Cosmetologists, Dentists, Embalmers, Telephone Solicitors, Innkeepers, Nurses, Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal Dealers, Chiropractors, Real Estate Brokers, Plumbers, Sanitarians, Secondhand Dealers; Junk Yards, Motor Vehicle Salvage, Hearing Aid Dealers, Private Investigators, Speech-Language Pathologists ...just to name a few In one breath, you claim that you're all about facts and logic. But in the next breath, you admit that you can't prove the obvious. The two statements, at least to me, are incompatible. What I draw from those two statements is that you have opinions you consider to be fact, and are incapable of proving them. The easiest proof, in your mind, is to call them obvious and walk away, which, of course, proves nothing. More comments inline. In summary, Greg, I think you ought to seek professional help. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 First, I never said I was a master logician. This is simply another in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that proves the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you read, choose to embelish what you read or assume things about what you read. What I said was that I stick to the facts and logic, not that I am a master logician See above. Second, philosophers have been arguing over existence for a long, long time now. And the fact that I exist is pretty evident and obvious to me at least. Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest. Perhaps you might care to explain its relevance to this discussion. Finally, I really have no interest in proving the obvious to you or anyone else. Then you have no grounds assert that what you say is grounded in facts and logic. So I am free to argue that everything you say is grounded in hot air. It is obvious To whom? that computers and technology have become critically important components of everyone's daily lives. I know at least one person who has no computer and derives very little benefit from them. So your point is wrong. It is obvious To whom? that the entire recorded history of occupations and public welfare laws in the United States points to the fact that as an occupation becomes increasingly important to the public welfare that licensing and other laws are passed to regulate it's behavior. That would be its. Again, obvious to whom? It is obvious To whom? that without self-regulation that these laws will likely be passed by state governments and could be quite restricting and quite harsh. This is conjecture, not facts or even logic. It is obvious that because of the computer industry's rather libertarian bent Deckler's rule #53 for arguing: When you can't prove something, give it a label that has all sorts of connotations. Yeah, Microsoft is real libertarian. This supposition shows just how little about computers and the computer industry you really understand. that we, as independent computer consultants and professionals, have no single voice with which to speak in order to combat laws and regulations that others would pass to regulate us. Personally, being that I am a member, the Computer Society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers speaks for me. I do not interpret its standards of ethics to read that accepting a small gratuity from a partner company to be a massive conflict of interest. Sorry to bring this argument back on topic,
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Maybe he turned down the MVP thing so he could accept gifts from MS without being consumed by guilt... Jeff Hague Anyone up for a sprited debate about brick level backups? -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Actually, I recall (perhaps inaccurately, though) that he claims he was offered an MVP but he refused it. I do not know any actual facts other than his own claims on this matter, however. 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, December 22, 2003 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Again, your ignorance of the facts makes you look foolish. I was asked to be an MVP and turned it down. That's what started this whole mess 8 years ago. I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort=20 you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. =20 I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR=20 company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. =20 How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. =20 Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or=20 that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type=20 of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore=20 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not=20 to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
VH1 - Where are they now :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics And just who's survey list did you use to verify this? Billboard or the AT40 list? John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:33 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I said TOP 10 Classic Hit :) Tom M. of Texas is the winner if anyone cares. The song was Jessie's Girl by Rick Springfield. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Rob Hackney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics : Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Do you mean in the band name, song title or lyrics? Eg: Moot The Hoople - Ballad of Mott the Hoople (1973)? This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It should not be deemed to constitute a binding contract between TKC Group and the recipient(s) unless a purchase order number is quoted. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TKC Group Ltd. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please do not copy or disclose its contents. Please return it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete the email. intY has scanned this email for all known viruses (www.inty.com) _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Well, you're missing the big picture and the whole point, but yes, if you paid Microsoft, even one dollar, then it would not be such an egregious breach of ethics. So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type of intelligent discussion based on the fact that you choose to ignore 2/3rds of what was posted, or should I just assume that you chose not to discuss those points because you couldn't keep your I have my Ethics argument and all this would be moot? Speaking of MOOT, can anyone tell me what top 10 classic rock single contains the word MOOT? Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Oh gosh, I had no idea we've been talking about this for 8 years! And because you were able to resist the great Satan, now you come here and tell us all that those damnable MVP's here are leading us into sin! I see the light! OK, thanks, move along now. Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Again, your ignorance of the facts makes you look foolish. I was asked to be an MVP and turned it down. That's what started this whole mess 8 years ago. I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort=20 you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. =20 I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR=20 company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. =20 How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Now there's a twist on it I haven't thought of. You mean if I get herpes my Chronic Back Pain will go away? :) To hell with this scheduled neurosurgery, I'm gonna go get Herpes! Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the name-calling that goes on this
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Not to mention all of the herpes outbreak medication commercials that you can star in Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED, not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know when to shut up. As for the
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
That's it. The greg filter is being applied :) John Parker, MCSE IS Admin. Senior Technical Specialist Alpha Display Systems. Alpha Video 7711 Computer Ave. Edina, MN. 55435 952-896-9898 Local 800-388-0008 Watts 952-896-9899 Fax 612-804-8769 Cell 952-841-3327 Direct [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be excellent to each other ---End of Line--- -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Not to mention all of the herpes outbreak medication commercials that you can star in Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics was where I went astray. As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Nice. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: John Parker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That's it. The greg filter is being applied :) John Parker, MCSE IS Admin. Senior Technical Specialist Alpha Display Systems. Alpha Video 7711 Computer Ave. Edina, MN. 55435 952-896-9898 Local 800-388-0008 Watts 952-896-9899 Fax 612-804-8769 Cell 952-841-3327 Direct [EMAIL PROTECTED] Be excellent to each other ---End of Line--- -Original Message- From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Not to mention all of the herpes outbreak medication commercials that you can star in Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics But according to the commercials on TV it's hip to get herpes. You can do all these cool things like rafting and mountain climbing when you have herpes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sadler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics That what they said about herpes :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If people would just quit responding to him, he would go away. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Winzenz Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO Do I get credibility now? In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. And no, I never said that MVP's would cause the demise of the computer industry. What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry is not going away, it will simply be more regulated. If we do it ourselves, we have a say in those regulations. If we do not, then government gets to have that say. Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest.=20 Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO =20 Do I get credibility now? =20 In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are=20 Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed=20 it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps=20 your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics=20 was where I went astray. =20 As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own=20 website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that=20 should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED,=20 not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your=20 company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. =20 One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this=20 list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never=20 decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know=20 when to shut up. =20 As for the name-calling that goes on this list, I suggest you shut up, sit back, and learn. Sure, Ed, Tony, and Don (and a few more) can=20 certainly be grating on someone's nerves, but I will promise you, they know more about Exchange Systems then you could wish to know in a=20 lifetime. While I don't choose to instruct in the same way these=20 people do, I certainly understand where they get to the point and call someone an idiot for not looking up an issue like How do I turn on my computer before
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation. As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ 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: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only?
You asked how you could prevent multiple users from editing the same attachment at the same time. Ed told you one way you can do it. If you don't want to deploy a document management system, or some other similar workaround, then the answer is No. -Ben- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Jason Clishe Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system? Not only does this suggestion not asnwer the question I asked, it is completely inappropriate for my particular situation, and adds little value to this thread. Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 7:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? Deploy a real document management system, one that has the capability to check out and check in documents. http://www.80-20.com is one that integrates with Exchange. There are many others that may or may not integrate with Exchange. 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 Jason Clishe Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Force opening PF attachments as Read-Only? When a user has a Public Folder attachment open, other users can also open the same attachment and make changes. Is there any way to prevent this? For example, to force the document to open as read-only when someone else has it open? Jason _ 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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
Comments inline. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 Ed, you apparently have never had children that continually ask why. Oh, but I do. And I answer them to the best of my ability. Perhaps you should do the same. Why do you exist? Because it is obvious that you exist, you would not be standing here talking to me if you did not exist. We are not arguing my existence. We are arguing the whether accepting a small gift of appreciation and a title from a partner company for providing peer support is unethical. Why? Well, because you first have to exist before you can talk. Why? Because otherwise you wouldn't have vocal cords. But why? Let's get back to the topic instead of your feeble attempts to distract me. And no Ed, I am not calling you a child, I am saying that you are acting like a child. Now, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone can argue with anything as long as they deny the obvious. You still haven't answered to whom these things are obvious. Just because something is obvious to you in your little fantasy world doesn't mean that they're obvious to me. I can argue over my own existence and nobody will be able to prove that I exist as long as I want to deny the obvious fact that I exist. I am not denying anyone's existence. I am denying that your value judgments are obvious. They are only obvious to you. This is what you are doing and while you can deny the obvious, To whom? it does not mean that the obvious is not true, You are the one stating your opinion as fact and as being obvious, so you have the burden of proof to show that your opinions are true and obvious. that you and I both exist I know you exist because I have seen and met you (unless Greg Deckler died between then and now and you is an impostor). I suspect that it is not necessarily obvious to many on this list that you exist. Perhaps I am the one who is mad and I invented you and I write this entire argument just for the list's entertainment (or whatever). So, you see, even the fact that you and I exist isn't necessarily obvious to all. But that isn't the subject here. The subject is whether accepting a small gratuity and title from a partner company for providing peer support is unethical. And on that point, you have yet to make a satisfactory case, in my opinion. and that the IT industry either regulates itself or will be regulated by government. Nice conjecture. Guess what? I know people that have never used an Auctioneer, but guess what? The Ohio Revised Code has explicit laws and regulations regarding the Auctioneer occupation. Is that because they became MVPs? I know certain hippies that have never gotten a haircut. Guess what? The Ohio Revised Code has extensive laws and regulations regarding the Barber occupation. Are there extensive laws and regulations regarding the hippie occupation? Your use of that term tells a lot, by the way. There are also laws and regulations for... Architects, Attorneys, Cosmetologists, Dentists, Embalmers, Telephone Solicitors, Innkeepers, Nurses, Pawnbrokers, Precious Metal Dealers, Chiropractors, Real Estate Brokers, Plumbers, Sanitarians, Secondhand Dealers; Junk Yards, Motor Vehicle Salvage, Hearing Aid Dealers, Private Investigators, Speech-Language Pathologists How many of those because regulated because they accepted MVP status? In any of your long-winded fatuous posts will you ever address exactly how this is unethical? ...just to name a few That reminds me of the and much more that always ends a list in television commercials. Okay, how many more are there? One, two? In one breath, you claim that you're all about facts and logic. But in the next breath, you admit that you can't prove the obvious. The two statements, at least to me, are incompatible. What I draw from those two statements is that you have opinions you consider to be fact, and are incapable of proving them. The easiest proof, in your mind, is to call them obvious and walk away, which, of course, proves nothing. More comments inline. In summary, Greg, I think you ought to seek professional help. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 7:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 First, I never said I was a master logician. This is simply another in a long line of dozens of mischaracterizations of my posts that proves the fact that you either cannot read, cannot comprehend what you read, choose to embelish
Re: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
There's already another DC in the domain, which is a GC. How do I move the FSMO roles to it? And does that satisfy your instructions below? - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 Install another domain controller, move all the FSMO roles to it, make it a GC. Retire the original server and rebuild it from scratch properly and move everything back. 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 Patrick Crawford Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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]
SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I´am about to get sick and tierd of this discussion group It is more or less geeting into a discussion group of children with numbers useless posts. Don´t u´ people have anywhere else you could discuss this NON RELATED exchange stuff - so this discussion group again could get back on track. Best regards Troels M Systemconstructor -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Dan Bartley Sendt: 22. december 2003 18:47 Til: Exchange Discussions Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation. As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards, Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
What started this whole mess is your unique (that wasn't my first choice of adjectives) point of view on ethics and your insistence that it is the correct and only viewpoint. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Again, your ignorance of the facts makes you look foolish. I was asked to be an MVP and turned it down. That's what started this whole mess 8 years ago. I get this strange idea that someone wasn't chosen to be an MVP and is very very angry about it :) Bob Sadler -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort=20 you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. =20 I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR=20 company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. =20 How interesting that
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Well, you're missing the big picture and the whole point, but yes, if you paid Microsoft, even one dollar, then it would not be such an egregious breach of ethics. So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and dear. How interesting that you choose to respond ONLY to one point, and then make irrelevant statements about people calling you names. Since I didn't call you names sir, perhaps you should go back and re-read the whole message. It's not that I consider you a liar, or that you are stupid. I now consider you incapable of having any type
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Dude? This particular topic was started by *you* on 12/18. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. And no, I never said that MVP's would cause the demise of the computer industry. What I said was, today we have a choice to either regulate ourselves or to wait for government to regulate us. That is what I said. I am more than happy to wait around for government to regulate us, that's why I don't bring up this whole ethics discussion. The computer industry is not going away, it will simply be more regulated. If we do it ourselves, we have a say in those regulations. If we do not, then government gets to have that say. Then you live your ethics, and let the rest of us live ours. Then, when the IT industry goes to hell in a handbasket, you can blame us all for it's demise. We (speaking collectively here) don't believe that MVP's are unethical for receiving a small stipend or gift (whatever it might be). You do. That's fine, but stop trying to force it upon the rest of us. Our views aren't going to change, and your views aren't going to change, so let it rest.=20 Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 I do not claim that all MVP's are Microsoft wh0res. I simply don't claim that. In fact, I have posted things in direct opposition to that claim. If you are going to make such blatant mis-characterizations, then I am not going to respond to the rest of your post, which I can only assume you will then take as proof that you are right or that I cannot make rational arguments or whatever other non-sense you want to claim. Ethical god? Please. I have, nor ever will claim to be an ethical god. I have my set of ethics that I follow, period. And I did not bring up this whole point of ethics on this list. I posted an email about Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 that then degenerated into this mess. Thank your buddy Ed for that. And about this claim that I am not following my own ethical guidelines. Hey, there may be some truth to it. I haven't seen any proof from what miserable evidence you have supplied, but I am more than willing to admit that I may not live up to every single bit of the ethical code that I have. Know what? It doesn't matter. An ethical code is the ceiling, it is what everyone should aspire to, but it is not expected that everyone will ALWAYS actually achieve every single little detail. That's not what ethics is about. The laws are the floor, the ethical code the ceiling, aspire to get as close to the ceiling as possible. All I can say is that I try my absolute hardest, every day, to meet my own ethical standards. Do I succeed every day? No, but I TRY. Finally, just because the officer that tickets you for speeding murdered his wife last night doesn't mean that you DIDN'T break the law for speeding. I have no credibility because I don't say BOO? Ok then...BOO =20 Do I get credibility now? =20 In all seriousness, I'm not the one who claims that all MVP's are=20 Microsoft Whores or that MVP's are doing anything wrong in their world. Since, you are the one that brought up the point of ethics, I assumed=20 it was you that were claiming to be the ethical god here. Perhaps=20 your pointing out that you don't accept gifts because of your ethics=20 was where I went astray. =20 As for the litmus test you are under, I suggest you read your own=20 website. YOU are working for that company, and YOU are the one that=20 should be upholding ALL the virtues of that company, not me, not ED,=20 not TONY, heck, not even DON; only you! You don't like what your=20 company puts up as a litmus test, then I suggest you find a job elsewhere. =20 One thing still stands, you still aren't drumming up business in this=20 list when you explode on potential customers. I hope you never=20 decide to come calling on my account, I'm sure your boss would like to know the reason I refused you a meeting was because you don't know=20 when to shut up. =20 As for the name-calling
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased technical advice to a client. That is the definition of real or perceived conflict of interest. It does not mean that you WILL act unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and conflict of interest rules. Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20 As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_mode=3D= lang =3Denglish 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=3Dexchangetext_mode=3D= lang=3Denglish 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
How am I changing position? I have always stated that the problem with MVP is that it is a gift. If you paid for it and it were not a gift, then it is something that you PAID for, just like MCSE or any other certification. Explain how this is a change in my point of view? You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less egregious. And your admission of even a slight change of your point of view shows just how fatuous your argument is. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:41 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Well, you're missing the big picture and the whole point, but yes, if you paid Microsoft, even one dollar, then it would not be such an egregious breach of ethics. So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner than being an MVP? It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an MVP, but I do work for it. Don't you have to sign lots of agreement papers to be a Partner? Do you give all your customers copies of those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest? So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of interest ends? You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of interest. Your only proof so far is along the lines of, It's obvious, or It is because I say it is. Perhaps it's because you can't prove 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase I finish them (fights) offensive but not someone being called a liar, stupid, idiot, wife beater. You simply have zaro credibility. Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it because you are going to deny the obvious. Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this industry. It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out. Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim to be the all ethical sort. And to my knowledge, I have no ethics test that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization and exposes your bias. I am not, nor ever will be all ethical and holier than thou. I have *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all. Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a Microsoft partner. In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a fight. And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my youth, I accepted direct gifts from vendors. I cannot recall any particular occassion, but I'm willing to bet that it probably occurred. And guess what? I stopped that long, long, long ago because IT IS WRONG. So, to sum it up, you have no credibility that you have been offended in any way because there have been lots more offensive stuff said that you have not said boo about. And, you are in self-denial about the DISTINCT difference between accepting a pure gift from a vendor and PAYING that vendor to attend a convention, etc. Here's a hint. One costs you money, the other doesn't. I am not quibbling with what you said, I'm instead taking offense at what you said. You see, you can't claim to be the all ethical sort you want, if you can't even pass the ethics test of your own making. I didn't post any of those points on your website, someone from YOUR company did, and you are the one claiming to hold them near and
RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
Google for moving FSMO roles. It's somewhat simple, you just have to make sure all of the roles have been moved. -Original Message- From: Patrick Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 There's already another DC in the domain, which is a GC. How do I move the FSMO roles to it? And does that satisfy your instructions below? - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 Install another domain controller, move all the FSMO roles to it, make it a GC. Retire the original server and rebuild it from scratch properly and move everything back. 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 Patrick Crawford Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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: OWA - File not found when logging out
Okay, bad, bad evil things just happened. I re-ran the IISLockdown tool to undo the normal settings. Now, NO ONE can get logged into OWA, including Admin. I just keep getting prompted for user/pass. Outlook still works fine, and mail still seems to be flowing. Remote users are burning up the phone line I checked the permissions on the files before doing this, and everything looked fine. Is there a way to reinstall OWA on SBS without a lot of grief? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edgington, Jeff Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA - File not found when logging out This is definitely a permissions problem (we had the same trouble)... I remember having to modify the permission on this file... but I will need to look for my notes. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Erik Sojka Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA - File not found when logging out 404 errors like that might be related to URLScan. Do you have that installed? If so, the default settings on URLscan shouldn't clobber the logoff.asp page though... -Original Message- From: Pat Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA - File not found when logging out Greetings! We've got a client with a fairly new 2000 SBS box. Exchange SP3 and the post SP3 rollup are installed. For some reason, when logging out of OWA, the logout page (To complete the logout) is missing. The file (/exchweb/bin/USA/logoff.asp) DOES exist in the folder, it's just not displayed, with the server reporting it as a 404 error. All other features of OWA work fine (as far as I can tell - no reported issues). Anyone seen this before? I'm not aware of anyone tinkering with the server, and the IIS stuff looks ok. I've tried Googling and KB'ing this, but didn't come up with anything. Thoughts, comments, suggestions, and death threats are all welcome. _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
It's not exactly a gift. It's a recognition for a contribution pefrormed. There are, admittedly, strings attached, although there are none that I consider to be ethical issues. I completely resent your entire assertion that I am somehow unethical because I accept the title and gifts associated with being an MVP. I will defend my standards of ethics against anyone's, including your poorly defined and indefensible set. In fact, I was nearly fired from my current job because I defended ethical behavior, but the system worked and I am still here. (This was completely unrelated to anything surrounding Microsoft or MVP.) So, let's get back to the real argument. Please either (1) prove how being an MVP is unethical, or (2) go away and let this thread rest. I tire of your repeated extrapolations, digressions, and less-than-brilliant treatises. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The flaw here is that that Cisco Certified has clearly defined things that must be met and requires a payment to the vendor to achieve. You must PAY to get the required material. You must PAY to take the tests. You must PAY for the certification. MVP is a gift. There are no explicit requirements and there is no exchange of currency. This is the CLEAR difference between certifications and gifts like MVP. Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Yes, it seemed silly to me to have a discussion in no way related to Migrating to GroupWise 6.5 taking place under that title, so I chose to create a thread that more accurately depicted the discussion. This was done so that people could more easily weed it out and ignore it if they wanted. Dude? This particular topic was started by *you* on 12/18. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics =20 =20 I HAVE tried to let it rest. Ed brought up this whole topic=20 from a message posted as Migrating from GroupWise 6.5. Don't blame me for=20 bringing the topic up because I DIDN'T BRING THE TOPIC UP. =20 _ 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: Upgrade from 2003 RC1
There are Microsoft KB articles that will tell you exactly how to do it. After you move all five FSMO roles, you can then demote the domain controller and then rebuild the server. 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 Patrick Crawford Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 There's already another DC in the domain, which is a GC. How do I move the FSMO roles to it? And does that satisfy your instructions below? - Original Message - From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:20 AM Subject: RE: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 Install another domain controller, move all the FSMO roles to it, make it a GC. Retire the original server and rebuild it from scratch properly and move everything back. 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 Patrick Crawford Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Upgrade from 2003 RC1 I recently asked this question at microsoft.public.exchange.admin, and failing to get an answer in a couple of days, thought I'd ask again here. It's possible I'm being impatient, since I'm mostly working during this Christmas season while the person who knows the answer is doubtlessly taking a much-deserved holiday, but on the off-chance that the Someone Who Knows is currently available I'm going to repost it here I find myself in a very deep crack here. I installed RC1 last summer, let it expire, and then last week attempted to upgrade it to RTM. Seemed to work. However, the RTM continues to behave as though it is time-limited and announces my eval period has expired, shutting Exchange down after a half-hour to an hour. So, trying to back out of this situation, I thought to uninstall. However, I am prevented from uninstalling by a message which declares that an upgrade from Standard to Enterprise is in progress and that I must do a Reinstall to complete it. Unfortunately, even after a Reinstall, the problems persist, and I can go neither forward nor backward. So, there it is. Re-building the domain is not an option here, since it is a production domain...Any assistance greatly appreciated, Patrick Crawford VaspTech LLC _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
No Ed, you blatantly mis-characterized my position and forced me to clarify what I believe. I am not going to let you or anyone else interpret what I believe and provide bogus information to someone when I can tell them directly what I believe without going through a third-party. All I did was to admit that I am a vendor whore. It is you who launched into a weak but wordy defense of your silly position. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics _ 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: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Unbiased? In what world? I am an Exchange and Windows consultant. My customers want our and Microsoft's best practices. I really can't see how there is any conflict of interest being an MVP with regard to the job I do. In fact, it's a benefit because it gives me access to resources I wouldn't have otherwise, so I can do a better job for my custmers. I can see how your argument might hold water in some circumstances, but you fail to prove how it creates a fundamental conflict of interest that isn't best judged by each MVP individually and according to his own standards and conscience. 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 Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Um, yes it DOES make it unethical. You are accepting a direct gift from a vendor and then turning around and supposedly giving unbiased technical advice to a client. That is the definition of real or perceived conflict of interest. It does not mean that you WILL act unethically, but it is OBVIOUSLY a breach of ethical conduct and conflict of interest rules. Sort of. There are no well documented criteria that you apply for and then meet, there are informal criteria that leads to an invitation.=20 As I said, others must decide whether the criteria meet the expertise they are looking for. That does not make it unethical, as you know. I seriously doubt any customer will give you a blank check simply based on being an MVP, but I know I can have a higher degree of trust for the info (usually) a MVP provides in lists like this. Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Just so that the record is set straight and Deckler doesn't feel the need to write a 2,000-word response to this technical inaccuracy, the title of MVP isn't awarded based set standards. It's rather subjective, I must confess. 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 Dan Bartley Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Titles based on criteria that has been successfully met, as in MVP or Cisco Certified, etc., has no ethical issues. It is an earned title that denotes an area of expertise. It is up to those who view the title to determine if the criteria for getting the title warrants a level of trust and respect. Personal gifts from vendors that you make purchasing decisions regarding is unethical. Rules of ethics are necessary in this business. Ceaselessly arguing in order to have the last word is poor use of brain power, poor use of this list and poor use of ethics. Anyone whose priority is to *always* win the fight must sacrifice the truth and good judgment, thereby violating basic ethics. Just another opinion :-) Best Regards,=20 Dan Bartley -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I got to the first paragraph in your post and pretty much quit reading.=20 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=3Dexchangetext_mo de=3D= lang =3Denglish 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=3Dexchangetext_mo de=3D= lang=3Denglish 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
