RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
both -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 6:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Is that an opinion or fact? 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 Christopher Hummert Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics His comments don't even require a response to validate them. Why bother then? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics It may have ended now. Even if it hasn't, you can rest assured that it will eventually. It always does. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I really must apologise for that moment of panic. And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone. Where will it all end? I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And the Vikings sketch. Anyway. Sorry. -Original Message- From: Bowles, John (OIG/OMP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 18:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Don't Feed the Troll!!! The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Thanks Ed for clarifying it. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 6:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? They are copies delivered to that location because you asked for it by setting the Message Archival diagnostic logging setting. Set it back to None and they'll stop accruing. Delete the files at your leisure. 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 Sanjeev Sharma Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ex 5.5, SP4. The Diagnostics Logging for Message Archival is set to Medium on the front end exchange server. When I look into the imcdata\In\Archive folder I see tons of email files with alpha-numeric name. I see in every minute there are about 4 to 5 emails. Are these messages have already been delivered? I try to open some of them and noticed some are legitimate messages and some are spam. My question is why the good messages get delivered to this location. I also see the same in imcdata\Out\Archive folder. Can I delete these messages without causing any harm to the application because? Please help me to understand this. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yeah, I don't try to block everything, but I do occasionally block individual IPs that seem to be extra chatty. Doing it all is impossible. Some folks use one RBL or another on a gateway server, but that has its own drawbacks. Yes, the logs I'm talking about are the ones in imcdata\log. IIS SMTP logs are similar, but not exactly the same. In particular, IIS SMTP doesn't log the AUTH handshake. :( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yes, but for every single IP I block 10 more show up. It has more of a feel of a "hole" or a compd password especially when I come in AM and there are 24,000 ndr's in the que. Just to clarify are the logs you are talking about a few emails ago are in fact the logs from the imcdata/log folder yes? Can IIS smtp logs be expected to be in the same format? -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Or
RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Is that an opinion or fact? 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 Christopher Hummert Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics His comments don't even require a response to validate them. Why bother then? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics It may have ended now. Even if it hasn't, you can rest assured that it will eventually. It always does. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I really must apologise for that moment of panic. And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone. Where will it all end? I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And the Vikings sketch. Anyway. Sorry. -Original Message- From: Bowles, John (OIG/OMP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 18:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Don't Feed the Troll!!! The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
They are copies delivered to that location because you asked for it by setting the Message Archival diagnostic logging setting. Set it back to None and they'll stop accruing. Delete the files at your leisure. 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 Sanjeev Sharma Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ex 5.5, SP4. The Diagnostics Logging for Message Archival is set to Medium on the front end exchange server. When I look into the imcdata\In\Archive folder I see tons of email files with alpha-numeric name. I see in every minute there are about 4 to 5 emails. Are these messages have already been delivered? I try to open some of them and noticed some are legitimate messages and some are spam. My question is why the good messages get delivered to this location. I also see the same in imcdata\Out\Archive folder. Can I delete these messages without causing any harm to the application because? Please help me to understand this. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yeah, I don't try to block everything, but I do occasionally block individual IPs that seem to be extra chatty. Doing it all is impossible. Some folks use one RBL or another on a gateway server, but that has its own drawbacks. Yes, the logs I'm talking about are the ones in imcdata\log. IIS SMTP logs are similar, but not exactly the same. In particular, IIS SMTP doesn't log the AUTH handshake. :( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yes, but for every single IP I block 10 more show up. It has more of a feel of a "hole" or a compd password especially when I come in AM and there are 24,000 ndr's in the que. Just to clarify are the logs you are talking about a few emails ago are in fact the logs from the imcdata/log folder yes? Can IIS smtp logs be expected to be in the same format? -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I thi
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Ex 5.5, SP4. The Diagnostics Logging for Message Archival is set to Medium on the front end exchange server. When I look into the imcdata\In\Archive folder I see tons of email files with alpha-numeric name. I see in every minute there are about 4 to 5 emails. Are these messages have already been delivered? I try to open some of them and noticed some are legitimate messages and some are spam. My question is why the good messages get delivered to this location. I also see the same in imcdata\Out\Archive folder. Can I delete these messages without causing any harm to the application because? Please help me to understand this. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yeah, I don't try to block everything, but I do occasionally block individual IPs that seem to be extra chatty. Doing it all is impossible. Some folks use one RBL or another on a gateway server, but that has its own drawbacks. Yes, the logs I'm talking about are the ones in imcdata\log. IIS SMTP logs are similar, but not exactly the same. In particular, IIS SMTP doesn't log the AUTH handshake. :( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yes, but for every single IP I block 10 more show up. It has more of a feel of a "hole" or a compd password especially when I come in AM and there are 24,000 ndr's in the que. Just to clarify are the logs you are talking about a few emails ago are in fact the logs from the imcdata/log folder yes? Can IIS smtp logs be expected to be in the same format? -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Ex 5.5, SP4. The Diagnostics Logging for Message Archival is set to Medium on the front end exchange server. When I look into the imcdata\In\Archive folder I see tons of email files with alpha-numeric name. I see in every minute there are about 4 to 5 emails. Are these messages have already been delivered? I try to open some of them and noticed some are legitimate messages and some are spam. My question is why the good messages get delivered to this location. I also see the same in imcdata\Out\Archive folder. Can I delete these messages without causing any harm to the application because? Please help me to understand this. Thanks. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yeah, I don't try to block everything, but I do occasionally block individual IPs that seem to be extra chatty. Doing it all is impossible. Some folks use one RBL or another on a gateway server, but that has its own drawbacks. Yes, the logs I'm talking about are the ones in imcdata\log. IIS SMTP logs are similar, but not exactly the same. In particular, IIS SMTP doesn't log the AUTH handshake. :( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yes, but for every single IP I block 10 more show up. It has more of a feel of a "hole" or a compd password especially when I come in AM and there are 24,000 ndr's in the que. Just to clarify are the logs you are talking about a few emails ago are in fact the logs from the imcdata/log folder yes? Can IIS smtp logs be expected to be in the same format? -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/
RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
His comments don't even require a response to validate them. Why bother then? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics It may have ended now. Even if it hasn't, you can rest assured that it will eventually. It always does. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I really must apologise for that moment of panic. And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone. Where will it all end? I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And the Vikings sketch. Anyway. Sorry. -Original Message- From: Bowles, John (OIG/OMP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 18:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Don't Feed the Troll!!! The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
A big issue with outsourcing can be if the company in question goes out of business, in which case you often have a short time to make alternative arrangements. Since the company won't actually be hosting your e-mail, your risk is smaller, but still worth considering. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boyd, Nathan Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outsourcing email? List, What do you think of using an outsourced Spam service like Postini? For our environment it is a choice of using Postini internally (via existing Trend IMSS) or sending all mail via Postini. What do people think of sending mail to another service? Personally I have concerns with SEC and HIPPA; I also worry about rising costs once we are with them, response times for emergency etc. Nathan _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: adprep /forestprep versus exchange2000
This is not strictly required, but I would recommend you do it because you
never know if you will want to use these attributes in the future. The
process only takes a few minutes.
Have you seen this fine article:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;325379 ?
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 Microsoft Exchange
List Server
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: adprep /forestprep versus exchange2000
Hi all,
W2kAD (w2k+sp4)
Exchange2000+Sp3
We plan to upgrade both our W2KAD(native) and W2KDcs to W2K3AD and W2K3
respectively.
We already have exchange2000+Sp3 already installed in our domain.
Could you please tell me if this article is needed, I am not sure if this
article ("mangled" ldapdisplay) can be ignored because of our
exchange2000+SP3.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314649&Product=exch2
k if the article is needed do you think that the changes can be done using
"adsi editor" instead of the ldf?
Thx
-Eric
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM
And they're misdirected. Spam is another name for UCE, unsolicited commercial e-mail, which the thread in question definitely is not. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hiatt, Jack (MARC) Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM these are worse than the debate. -Original Message- From: Troels Majlandt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 Dec 2003 14:23 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SV: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics SPAM SPAM -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] På vegne af Greg Deckler Sendt: 22. december 2003 19:58 Til: Exchange Discussions Emne: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics The second scenario still presents the potential for a conflict of interest. If you are accepting gifts from vendors then you may not be forthcoming with all information about problems or issues with the system that might cause the client to choose NOT to migrate, hold off on migration, etc. Still the potential for conflict of interest. > You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the types of = > consulting engagements. =20 > > One such type: "I want to put in a new email system. Please tell me = > which system from all of the major players would fit in my > environment." > > Another such type: "I've already decided that Lotus Notes is the email > = system for me. Please draw from your vendor-specific expertise and > help me = with my deployment." > > There are others of course. You seem fixated on the ethical problems > = that might arise with a vendor-biased consultant being hired for the > first of = my examples. In this first example, you are completely > correct in pointing = out the very real conflict of interest. I > cannot and should not expect completely neutral recommendations from a > person who markets themselves = as an expert in $vendor's technology. > Logic would dictate that the consultant would recommend the technology > that they are affiliated with. =20 > > You have completely and repeatedly ignored the possibility of the > second = (and IMO more frequently occurring) type. If I am already > running a $vendor = shop, I want to hire the best talent I can. I > would expect that the best = talent I can find would be familiar with > $vendor technology. The decision to use = a particular vendor has > already been made. By me. Without any prodding = or > cajoling by said consultant. =20 > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
It may have ended now. Even if it hasn't, you can rest assured that it will eventually. It always does. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics I really must apologise for that moment of panic. And apologise for this apology which I am sure is of no use to anyone. Where will it all end? I feel like I'm watching the intro to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And the Vikings sketch. Anyway. Sorry. -Original Message- From: Bowles, John (OIG/OMP) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 18:33 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Recall: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Don't Feed the Troll!!! The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: My Ethics are still good!
Maybe you can't "buy your way" into Who's Who, but I guarantee you that if you buy the Who's Who book, you'll get included a lot more in the future! 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 11:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OT: My Ethics are still good! I just received a phone call from the "Who's Who" list, and they wanted to put me in their upcoming edition. Of course, I said, in order to make it ethical, I would first have to pay you to put me in your edition. They insisted though that this was an AWARDED position based upon my credentials in my field, and you couldn't "buy" your way into the "Who's Who". Well, I told them right then and there that I know my ethics, and if I can't buy the award, it must be unethical! Thanks Greg! I have seen the light Bob Sadler _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Happy holidays, Greg. 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: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Man, I can't EVEN believe that I allowed myself to get sucked back into this infernal list again. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone. And the New Year thing. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
"I'd wager that Ed, for example, is proud of his online reputation." Thanks for the nice words. I would like to add that nobody who knows me thinks that I hesitate to criticize anything I feel deserves it, be it Microsoft or anything or anyone else. Here's one example: I've caught flack for some things I've said about Exchange clusters, which, in retrospect, were probably unfair. But that flack did not come from the MVP Program, but from within the ranks of my employer. 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 Shotton Jolyon Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Well, titles can be very handy - we have an honours system in the UK that would seem to back that up. But they are not as valuable as personal reputation as is evidenced by the number of people that refuse these titles on point of principle - often very publicly. (As you have done with your MVP, it occurs to me.) I'd wager that Ed, for example, is proud of his online reputation. He would not want to be seen as being under the influence of Microsoft and if the MVP programme put him in that position or even if he felt it made a significant number of people consider him to be in that position I suspect he would not be pleased. Now 8 out of 10 list members who expressed a preference said their cats couldn't give a rat's rectum about Ed having an MVP so his reputation is intact and he's happy to continue to be an MVP. It is this issue of reputation that keeps the argument alive - not any great love or covetousness of the award. You could slag off Microsoft, Exchange, the MVP programme or the dreadful Christmas sweaters that people are wearing right now and any fuss you managed to produce would die down fairly quickly but it is the suggestion that reputations are tarnished by the acceptance of an MVP award that has got people's backs up to the extent they are. There are plenty of people on here who are not and are never likely to be MVPs but they are still prepared to argue the toss - they have no conflict of interests here, no business built on an ethical manifesto, no supplier plying them with trinkets, no particular reputation of their own to defend and no reason to defend the MVP programme. That they do suggests that they are genuine in their belief that it is harmless. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 19:57 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics John, you post some intelligent stuff I have to say. Yes, there is an order of magnitude argument to be had in all of this and you argue it well. I base my position on a couple of premises, but the main argument is: Titles are absolutely priceless and have the potential to be much, much more corrupting than any monetary gift. For proof, I will simply point to this entire discussion now 8 years old. At the mere mention that there *might* be a conflict of interest problem with the MVP title, which is what I posted 8 years ago, it has generated thousands upon thousands of hateful emails, dragged on over 8 YEARS and people STILL cannot let it go. That, in and of itself, proves how corrupting an influence it is. People are SO covetous of it that they cannot abide even the mere SUGGESTION that there might be an ethical conflict. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
"...circling that drain." I like that. 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 Jim Helfer Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics "The Lurkers Support Me in E-mail!" I knew it was coming, and here it is at last! Another piece of the kook puzzle falls into place. I am so happy. We are still a few steps away from the "Every who is against me is just as bad as Hitler" gambit, but we are surely circling that drain. Jim H -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:53 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Actually, I have had plenty of people step forward, privately and support me. But they don't want to get involved in the list discussion. > I don't need to. I'm not the one spouting ridiculous opinions about ethics. > It's clear that you've lost the argument when you can't prove your > case, and To whom is it clear? Noone has EVER proven wrong that accepting direct gifts from vendors when you are in an industry that provides services to clients and customers for that vendor that it is NOT a conflict of interest. > instead challenge me to prove you wrong. Since you can't prove your > assertion, it is not a fact, and therefore it is an opinion. Since > your opinion is yours alone (noone else has stepped forward to agree > with you) then you have a very small minority opinion. An opinion, > I'm afraid to have to explain to you, are only as important as the > stature and number of those who hold it. > > So, it would seem that my position prevails, and your opinion is marginal. > Unless you can prove the contrary, you have no basis for arguing that > there is an ethical problem with the MVP program. > > 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 10:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > OK, I can be childish as well. > > You PROVE it. Prove to me that accepting gifts from vendors and then > turning around to clients and providing information and services about > and from those vendors is NOT a real or perceived conflict of interest. > > You prove that false. > > > Prove it. It is your opinion, not a fact. Everything you cite is > > made up in your own mind. > > > > Again, you are mixing up fact and opinion. What you believe is not > > necessarily what is true. That appears to be especially true in > > that special place known as Deckler-Land. > > > > By the way, surrounding your claimed invitation to be an MVP, who > > invited you and when? I don't recall you ever offering much > > positive peer support in the forums, but I do recall that you were > > considered to be a heckler way back before Exchange was even a > > product with a SKU. I find it hard to believe that you would ever > > have been welcomed as an MVP. Care to prove this assertion as well? > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg > > Deckler > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:10 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > > You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that > > accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem > > with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up > > all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If > > the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. > > > > > 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 thre
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
The first message I posted in this thread is in your PST file. I have reprinted it several times. Everything since then has been in-kind responses to yours. 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 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Was that where you reprinted that I posted a message on "Migrating from GroupWise 6.5" and you then chose to post messages that were rude, lacked basic civility and had nothing to do with the subject posted? You can retrace this conversation all you want and it is always going to come back to myself posting a question to the list and you repeatedly acting rudely until you finally forced me to respond to your blatant mis-characterization of my beliefs. I have no interest in bringing up this topic that was discussed ad nauseum eight years ago but I am always going to respond to posts that misrepresent and mischaracterize my beliefs. > That which I have reprinted several times now. > > 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 10:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > And what was before that? > > > Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:36:07 -0800 <- NINE HOURS PRIOR TO YOUR > > EVIDENCE > > > > From you: > > > > "Ed, > > > > Your lack of professionalism is truly staggering." > > > > Let the record show that you started the name calling and personal > attacks. > > > > Besides, I don't see how the comment you posted varies substantially > > from your subsequent diatribes. > > > > 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 10:15 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > > Too easy: > > > > 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!" > > > > > Where did I do that? Please replay the transcript. > > > > > > 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 10:07 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: 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=exchange&text_ > > > mo > > > de > > > =&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=exchange&text_mo >
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Yeah, I don't try to block everything, but I do occasionally block individual IPs that seem to be extra chatty. Doing it all is impossible. Some folks use one RBL or another on a gateway server, but that has its own drawbacks. Yes, the logs I'm talking about are the ones in imcdata\log. IIS SMTP logs are similar, but not exactly the same. In particular, IIS SMTP doesn't log the AUTH handshake. :( -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 5:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Yes, but for every single IP I block 10 more show up. It has more of a feel of a "hole" or a compd password especially when I come in AM and there are 24,000 ndr's in the que. Just to clarify are the logs you are talking about a few emails ago are in fact the logs from the imcdata/log folder yes? Can IIS smtp logs be expected to be in the same format? -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA --->
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Yes, but for every single IP I block 10 more show up. It has more of a feel of a "hole" or a compd password especially when I come in AM and there are 24,000 ndr's in the que. Just to clarify are the logs you are talking about a few emails ago are in fact the logs from the imcdata/log folder yes? Can IIS smtp logs be expected to be in the same format? -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From:
RE: SMTP Logging options?
The AUTH you posted below was just an advertisement from your server to the sending server saying that AUTH is supported. You didn't actually receive an AUTH from the sending server. You can see the IP that the messages are coming from - you can block any connections from that IP to reduce the traffic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
GAL not showing up after 5.5 to 2003 migration
We have migrated users from 5.5 to 2003, now the users do not see the elements in the GAL. I test from a user which is DOMAIN ADMIN. In Exchange System Manager, under Recipients, All GAL, Default GAL, i checked that the "default permissions" allowed my users to read the information. "Authenticated Users" have under the "Special permission" (not inherited) Read, Execute, Read Permissions, List Contents, Read Properties, List Object, they also have Open Address List (not inherited) and List Contents (inherited). The Domain Admins have everything but Full Control. Under the General tab, when i hit "Preview..." i see the list of elements that should be in the GAL. Why aren't my users (Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000 and possibly 97) not seeing the GAL ? Regards _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MTA error on Exchange 2000 server
I found this by searching for the first sentence on support.microsoft.com. It's an old article, but have you checked it out? http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;170056 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Davinder Gupta Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: MTA error on Exchange 2000 server I am getting the following errors on my first exchange 2k server in exchange 5.5 organization: A sockets error 0 on a bind() call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: 0. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 11 258] (12) The source is MSEXCHANGEMTA and category is OPERATING SYSTEM. Any ideas?? Davinder _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
I didn't take it as a slam :) I'll read those rfc's So those auth's should be there cause they are NDR's, Now I just need to find the entries for the real messages that are causing the ndr's and find out what user they are using. In the mean time and I am going to cut my timeouts down to nothing so the que's stop piling up and my users can get legit email through. I wish I had my entire work day to dedicate to just email, unfortunately some of us have to wear many hats. e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto
RE: SMTP Logging options?
For anyone looking for a good rfc: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ I have found being able to look up rfc1893 to be very helpful, and have it bookmarked for quick access. (p.s. they have all the April 1 rfc's on there too) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 4:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchs
OT: Signature Problem
This is slightly off-topic but I have several users who complain that signatures are mis-formated when they leave our servers. There are extra line breaks in them. I have been trying to track this down but can't put my finger on it. I can't provide an example because of the posting rules. Any help is appreciated, - Matt _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Answering myself here... This is one of those big reasons why I believe that everyone should be familiar with the SMTP RFCs (2821 and 2822). You have to know what you're looking at to understand how to diagnose issues that come up. If you're not willing to learn how to read the dipstick, you better be willing to pay a mechanic to check the oil for you every so often. This isn't meant to be a slam on Mr. Hansen, rather a handy example to all the readers of the value of some basic knowledge of how the things you are responsible for function. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Webb, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 3:05 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microso ft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0
RE: SMTP Logging options?
No, just advertising that AUTH LOGIN is available isn't the bad thing. There was not an authentication done in that transaction. That message was accepted, as messages from "postmaster" ought to be. What would be bad is if your server then tried to make an outbound connection to chaudhry.co.uk (assuming that's not one of your internal domains). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microso ft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 86120 0 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knowing that my system is relay secure I am leaning towards a compromised password. So I check the 2010 events but they don't correspond with the times that the spam is getting dumped on the server. I'm not sure how I can get the auth username that was used to submit these messages in the first place. Lost e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Ok I think I found a problem. The 250 auth in the middle 12/23/2003 12:42:33 PM : A connection to 81.21.68.106 was established. 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 220 www.redmode.com ESMTP 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> EHLO postoffice02.aruplab.com 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : <<< 250-www.redmode.com 250-AUTH LOGIN PLAIN 250-AUTH=LOGIN PLAIN <- ***ISNT THIS BAD??*** 250-PIPELINING 250 8BITMIME 12/23/2003 12:42:59 PM : >>> MAIL FROM:<> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> RCPT TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> DATA 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 354 go ahead 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 250 ok 1072209192 qp 43075 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : >>> QUIT 12/23/2003 12:43:00 PM : <<< 221 www.redmode.com no username, no password, no admin. Isnt that a bad thing? E- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microso ft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 86120 0 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knowing that my system is relay secure I am leaning towards a compromised password. So I check the 2010 events but they don't correspond with the times that the spam is getting dumped on the server. I'm not sure how I can get the auth username that was used to submit these messages in the first place. Lost e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded string
RE: Outsourcing email?
Oh yeah, there was one other thing. Since we'll be pointing both primary and secondary MXen to the MSP, I no longer will have to worry about script kiddies and nitwits hammering our SMTP servewr (not and Exchange box, but still a possible weakness). Only the MSP's MXen will be allowed to access port 25 on that server. -- be - MOS The Tree of Learning bears the noblest fruit, but noble fruit tastes bad. > -Original Message- > From: East, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 2:27 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > We're starting a filtering service with a local MSP in a week or so. > > My reasoning came down to economies of scale. They can afford > to have a > guy watch the recipies full time and tweak them when the spam starts > coming through. They can afford to have someone watch the mailflow and > make sure that mailflow-in minus spam equals mailflow out. > And whatever > other companies are using the filtering service will help us by making > the filtering more efficient. > > I don't particularly worry about the filterer reading our mail; hell, > how bored would you have to be? And anyone at our ISP, or the > sender's, > can hook up a tap any time they want. > > -- > be - MOS > > "Earth is a great, big funhouse without the fun." > -- Jeff Berner > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:33 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > > > > I totally appreciate Paul's point of not wanting another > > potential delay > > that you can't control imposed but the data security aspect I don't > > understand. Email, if unencrypted, is insecure. > > > > If you are emailing something unencrypted outside your > > organisation you > > should assume it is public knowledge. I really don't see > that adding > > another handler makes any difference at all. It is by > > definition no longer > > "Company Insider" if you've sent it outside the company. > > > > Noone was suggesting that mail between internal sites > should be routed > > through this sort of service (Were they? Does anyone really have an > > internal Spam problem?) > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > > Why would you want the control of your un-encrypted, > > completely open to > > reading, mission critical, company insider information, mail > > left to someone > > outside your control? > > > > Do yourself a great big favor by keeping it in house. > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > > recipient or > > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > > information that > > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > > intended recipient, > > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > > it. If you have > > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and > > delete from your system. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
We're starting a filtering service with a local MSP in a week or so. My reasoning came down to economies of scale. They can afford to have a guy watch the recipies full time and tweak them when the spam starts coming through. They can afford to have someone watch the mailflow and make sure that mailflow-in minus spam equals mailflow out. And whatever other companies are using the filtering service will help us by making the filtering more efficient. I don't particularly worry about the filterer reading our mail; hell, how bored would you have to be? And anyone at our ISP, or the sender's, can hook up a tap any time they want. -- be - MOS "Earth is a great, big funhouse without the fun." -- Jeff Berner > -Original Message- > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > I totally appreciate Paul's point of not wanting another > potential delay > that you can't control imposed but the data security aspect I don't > understand. Email, if unencrypted, is insecure. > > If you are emailing something unencrypted outside your > organisation you > should assume it is public knowledge. I really don't see that adding > another handler makes any difference at all. It is by > definition no longer > "Company Insider" if you've sent it outside the company. > > Noone was suggesting that mail between internal sites should be routed > through this sort of service (Were they? Does anyone really have an > internal Spam problem?) > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > Why would you want the control of your un-encrypted, > completely open to > reading, mission critical, company insider information, mail > left to someone > outside your control? > > Do yourself a great big favor by keeping it in house. > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > recipient or > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > information that > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > intended recipient, > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > it. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and > delete from your system. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I'm not telling =) Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Tell me you Googled that. -- be - MOS One more such victory, and we are lost. --Pyrrus > -Original Message- > From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:58 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > It's Nemesis from Shriekback. > > > Eric Fretz > > L-3 Communications > ComCept Division > 2800 Discovery Blvd. > Rockwall, TX 75032 > tel: 972.772.7501 > fax: 972.772.7510 > > > > -Original Message- > From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word > "Parthenogenesis" in > a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: 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=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Tell me you Googled that. -- be - MOS One more such victory, and we are lost. --Pyrrus > -Original Message- > From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:58 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > It's Nemesis from Shriekback. > > > Eric Fretz > > L-3 Communications > ComCept Division > 2800 Discovery Blvd. > Rockwall, TX 75032 > tel: 972.772.7501 > fax: 972.772.7510 > > > > -Original Message- > From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word > "Parthenogenesis" in > a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: 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=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/res
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Paying attention to differences between GMT time and local time, yes the times should coincide. If you haven't had the logging enabled, there won't be anything to look at in the past, it will be in the future. The way the conversation looks is this: Sending MTA - Receiving MTA ---> < EHELO --> < 250 OK AUTH LOGON ---> < VXNlcm5hbWU= YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== ---> < UGFzc3dvcmQ= Zm9v > < 250 OK MAIL FROM: ---> < 250 OK RCPT TO: -> The base64 bits decode as follows: VXNlcm5hbWU= Username YWRtaW5pc3RyYXRvcg== administrator UGFzc3dvcmQ= Password Zm9v foo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:41 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microso ft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 86120 0 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knowing that my system is relay secure I am leaning towards a compromised password. So I check the 2010 events but they don't correspond with the times that the spam is getting dumped on the server. I'm not sure how I can get the auth username that was used to submit these messages in the first place. Lost e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
It's Nemesis from Shriekback. Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word "Parthenogenesis" in a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. > -Original Message- > From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Name a 80's dance band that successfully used the word "Parthenogenesis" in a song, for $5.38 and an ethical conflict from Microsoft. > -Original Message- > From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:40 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Ouch However the time stamps should coincide yes? And if its one or a few users that have been compd the garbage is fairly regular intervals, I would think it would show up. What about this base64 thing? I cant seem to find this encoded base 64 auth string to plug into that website. -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microso ft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 86120 0 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knowing that my system is relay secure I am leaning towards a compromised password. So I check the 2010 events but they don't correspond with the times that the spam is getting dumped on the server. I'm not sure how I can get the auth username that was used to submit these messages in the first place. Lost e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Tracking logs are different. They're not really human readable and they don't let you know the auth information. If you have Logon Success auditing turned on, you should get events in the security event logs, but they're not limited to SMTP or indicated as SMTP, so they're tougher to diagnose than using the protocol logs as previously described. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microso ft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 86120 0 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knowing that my system is relay secure I am leaning towards a compromised password. So I check the 2010 events but they don't correspond with the times that the spam is getting dumped on the server. I'm not sure how I can get the auth username that was used to submit these messages in the first place. Lost e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTA error on Exchange 2000 server
I am getting the following errors on my first exchange 2k server in exchange 5.5 organization: A sockets error 0 on a bind() call was detected. The MTA will attempt to recover the sockets connection. Control block index: 0. [BASE IL TCP/IP DRVR 11 258] (12) The source is MSEXCHANGEMTA and category is OPERATING SYSTEM. Any ideas?? Davinder _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
No, it means you don't have the logging turned on in the IMS (it does require a restart of the IMS service once you change the settings). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? I looked in the log dir and I only have a route.log and a route.old neither contain and IP or sender data related to this, the 2010 events don't correspond with the loads of garbage ndr's I am seeing either. Could these logs be in another folder? e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
You're looking at the wrong direction - inbound is where the problems can lie. You don't have control between the sender and your gateway. IMO, that's too much of a risk for any but the smallest companies to take. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:20 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > No, it's not bunk. > > You care about more and that's great but if, like the > previous poster, all > you care about is that "Once it's picked up by a server from > my gateway > machine, it's out of my control, and also no longer my > worry." then the > presence in the chain of a third party is not significant. > > Your company, I'm sure, has very good reason to want this > level of control > and very good reason for ensuring it retains that control no > matter what the > cost but it is not typical. > > We might all be safer and happier for having our arms round > as much of the > process as possible, as you do, but it's not practical for > everyone and > other simply don't care. > > At some point you have to let go and trust that all will be > well, it's just > a question of when you decide / want / have to do that. > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 16:28 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > That's complete bunk. > > I have complete control over where mail entering and leaving > my networks is > delivered, as well as having full logs of those transactions. > > Any system sending mail to inovis.com will route to one of 4 > boxes under our > control - I control the publication of the MX records that > point to the 4 > boxes which we control. By putting Postini (or any mail > outsourcer) into > that flow, I have to publish MX records pointing to boxes outside my > control. > > My systems have control of the mail until its handed off to > the systems that > the receivers have designated as responsible for their mail. > > In this schenario, I have as much control over email traffic > as possible. > Putting an ASP SPAM service in the middle creates a situation > in which you > don't have control over your own mail delivery, and that's > not something > which my company is willing to give up. > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > recipient or > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > information that > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > intended recipient, > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > it. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and > delete from your system. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
So you're admitting you can't prove your point? So you don't always deal in facts and logic, but your own personal opinion? Will you take the next step and agree that you opinion is not necessarily supreme? 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 1:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Sure, you can't prove the something is *NOT* white. But you also cannot prove that something IS white if the person you are talking to will not look at it and say "Yup, it's white alright." or even agree with your definition of white. Perhaps, your "white" my "blue"? The point was that asking me to prove that something is a conflict of interest is pointless unless you can agree to some ground rules. By not accepting and agreeing to a basic definition for "conflict of interest", there are no ground rules and hence it becomes impossible to prove anything. If you are always going to debate the actual meaning of the term "conflict of interest", then no one will ever convince you that ANYTHING is a conflict of interest, let alone white. > Asking someone to demonstrate a negative is a logical impossibility, > and a dishonest debating/argument tactic. You wouldn't win any awards > if you tried to sell me a product with that kind of logic. > > Jim > > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
I see your humor is on a par with your logic. 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 11:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics If truth be told, I actually LOVE to starve children. It is one of my guilty little pleasures. Some day I hope to have my own children to starve. My wife's cool with it, she likes to starve children as well. > Greg, you wrote: > > "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 embellish what you read or assume things about what you read." > > "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." > > "People mis-characterize and read things into my posts that are not = > there." > > "Personal attacks are generally the clearest sign that someone has > lost = an argument and has nothing better to say. So now I am a wife > beater, a = liar, I starve children and I get beat up a lot. I keep > learning things = about myself that I never knew before, I love this list." > > "And, I just gotta say...a starving child reference?!?!?! I > mean...what? = So now I'm taking food out of the mouths of children > because I believe = that accepting a vendor honorarium is unethical? > I...I...I literally = don't even know what to say to something that > incredibly inane. That one = takes the cake." > > > The original question I posed to you was: > > "Oh - are you an MCSE? Would having those initials behind your name = > enhance your credibility, marketability, business ventures and/or = > profits? Would obtaining such a title be unethical and wrong? If = > having those credentials put food in your children's mouths and a roof > = over their heads, would your attitude change any?" > > Did I state you starved children? Speaking of mischaracterizations, = > choosing to embellish, assuming things about what you read and not = > comprehending > > I asked you if having a specific vendor-based credential put food in > to = YOUR children's mouths, would your attitude change? You can = > mischaracterize, embellish, whatever to suit your needs. > > You should be absolutely exhausted by now from all the running in = > circles you do. Stick to your guns and stay stuck or as someone else > so = eloquently stated, STFU.=20 > > Actually, you remind me a singing and dancing Charles Durning from the = > "Best Little Wh0rehouse in Texas". O - I love to dance a little = > sidestep.. You're shucking and jiving so much trying to win your > = arguments you're doing the same things you accuse others of which = > results in serious damage to any credibility you may have had. I = > originally gave you credit for sticking to your beliefs but now must = > retract that statement. > > Doctors screw up and someone dies. Lawyers screw up and someone goes > to = prison or is freed to commit further crimes [you write the final > chapter = on this one]. Any person involved with the medical, dental, > physical, = psychological arenas [and their assistants, etc] screw up > and a life is = on the line. That's the reason for federal and/or > congressional = intervention along with written laws and ethics - to > guide behavior so = as to NOT put a life in jeopardy. You know what > happens when I screw = up? Pamela the personal assistant doesn't get > her e-mail from Aunt = Betty about what pie to bake for their holiday > dinner. Just have Aunt = Betty send her recipe right after I get the > mail server running = again. > > Professionalism, honesty, competence, experience and skill count and > go = a long way in this business. Being professional means policing > your = own, being proficient, earning respect and being an example for > others = to emulate and from there you can create the infrastructure > of ethics. = You'd better hit the silk now because your plane has way > too many holes = in it to fly and the hole you're landing yourself in > apparently has no = room for the traits I just mentioned.. Our > profession hasn't been = around long enough to begin this debate and > if you think otherwise, then = g
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Greg, you can take (and have taken) your crusade to ridiculous extremes. I daresay EVERYONE who you would respect has some "potential conflict of interest". Have you disclosed to every customer every stock you hold, and the stock holdings of every mutual fund you own? Have you disclosed every trinket or favorable treatment you've received from any vendor at any time? Anything like that can be construed as a "potential conflict of interest". You argue in overbroad generalities and don't draw any lines. Therefore, your arguments have no merit because they are of no use to anyone. Again, how does my being an MVP constitute even a "potential" conflict of interest? How does your standard of "potential conflict of interest" apply to everyone? Sooner of later, you're going to have to admit that a conflict of interest must be determined by the person involved, and not by your arbitrary, overbroad--even silly--generalizations. 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 11:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics As long as Inovis' HR department has no rules regarding accepting gits, etc. then you are personally and *technically in the clear with regards to your job. However it does not change the basic definition of "conflict of interest". You are employed at a company and paid by that company but are accepting gifts from another company which may cause your loyalties to go astray. Perhaps you are so concerned with providing this "peer support" that you do so on the company's time or with company equipment (Inovis). This is the whole reason why companies have conflict of interest rules and put caps and limitations on gifts. > > You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that > > accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem > > with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up > > all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If > > the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be > > offended. > > Prove it. And don't use the words "obvious" or "apparent" > > I'm paid to be a Windows Sysadmin. I'm a Microsoft MVP. Explain to me > exactly how that's a conflict of interest. The reality is that you > can't, because it isn't. > > Now, if I was selling Microsoft and Novell solutions and held my MVP > status, there could be some validity to the argument that there is a > *perceived* conflict of interest. There ISN'T a conflict of interest > until it affects my judgement or my recommendations to a customer. > Then again, MVP status is awarded for contributions to peer technical > support, which has nothing to do with selling anything. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:10 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > > > > You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that > > accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem > > with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up > > all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If > > the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be > > offended. > > > > > 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: Exchan
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Mr. Deckler argues that the IT profession will collapse into a heap unless it adopts HIS standards of ethics. 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 Ken Cornetet Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Whoa! Guys! Stop! UNBIASED *That* is the crux of the problem with this debate! Taking gifts (including titles) WOULD BE UNETHICAL *IF* the client had the expectation of the professional neutrality. Most IT professionals DO NOT FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY, therefore taking gifts IS NOT UNETHICAL AS LONG AS the client has no expectation of neutrality. Mr. Deckler argues that the IT profession would be better off adopting a stricter ethical standard, and that may be true. BUT, to judge ethical behavior today, we must use standards as defined by the IT profession TODAY, and that standard currently says vendor whoring is fine, SO LONG AS THE CLIENT ISN'T EXPECTING NEUTRALITY. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 12:59 PM 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=3Dexchange&text_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=3Dexchange&text_mo > de=3D= > & > lang=3Denglish > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
YFR. 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 10:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Actually, I have had plenty of people step forward, privately and support me. But they don't want to get involved in the list discussion. > I don't need to. I'm not the one spouting ridiculous opinions about ethics. > It's clear that you've lost the argument when you can't prove your > case, and To whom is it clear? Noone has EVER proven wrong that accepting direct gifts from vendors when you are in an industry that provides services to clients and customers for that vendor that it is NOT a conflict of interest. > instead challenge me to prove you wrong. Since you can't prove your > assertion, it is not a fact, and therefore it is an opinion. Since > your opinion is yours alone (noone else has stepped forward to agree > with you) then you have a very small minority opinion. An opinion, > I'm afraid to have to explain to you, are only as important as the > stature and number of those who hold it. > > So, it would seem that my position prevails, and your opinion is marginal. > Unless you can prove the contrary, you have no basis for arguing that > there is an ethical problem with the MVP program. > > 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 10:32 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > OK, I can be childish as well. > > You PROVE it. Prove to me that accepting gifts from vendors and then > turning around to clients and providing information and services about > and from those vendors is NOT a real or perceived conflict of interest. > > You prove that false. > > > Prove it. It is your opinion, not a fact. Everything you cite is > > made up in your own mind. > > > > Again, you are mixing up fact and opinion. What you believe is not > > necessarily what is true. That appears to be especially true in > > that special place known as Deckler-Land. > > > > By the way, surrounding your claimed invitation to be an MVP, who > > invited you and when? I don't recall you ever offering much > > positive peer support in the forums, but I do recall that you were > > considered to be a heckler way back before Exchange was even a > > product with a SKU. I find it hard to believe that you would ever > > have been welcomed as an MVP. Care to prove this assertion as well? > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg > > Deckler > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:10 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics > > > > You can be offended all you want, it does not change the FACT that > > accepting a direct gift from a vendor creates an obvious problem > > with basic conflict of interest rules. I don't make these rules up > > all I have stated is that a real or perceived conflict exists. If > > the argument held no water, then there would be no reason to be offended. > > > > > 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 > > > > > > T
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Well I'm totally lost I think. I found a tacking.log folder in root of exchsrvr. So for example in my ims ques ( which is relay secure) I have a ndr of spam, for destination in-f01.net and in the tracking log I see.. c=us;a= ;p=arup;l=POSTOFFICE020312221600190859 10182003.12.23 14:50:24 /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Connections/cn=Internet Mail Connector (POSTOFFICE02) /o=ARUP/ou=ARUP01/cn=Configuration/cn=Servers/cn=POSTOFFICE02/cn=Microsoft Private MDB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 86120 0 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Knowing that my system is relay secure I am leaning towards a compromised password. So I check the 2010 events but they don't correspond with the times that the spam is getting dumped on the server. I'm not sure how I can get the auth username that was used to submit these messages in the first place. Lost e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HTTP error 404 and OWA
that is right it only works on the BE server. - Original Message - From: "Neil Hobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:16 AM Subject: RE: HTTP error 404 and OWA Does OWA work on the back-end server only? Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of M2web Posted At: 22 December 2003 21:39 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: HTTP error 404 and OWA Subject: HTTP error 404 and OWA I have a FE/BE configuration with Exchange 2003. When I use the URL http://FE server/Exchange, I get the Window's Security popup but after login I get two frames each of them with HTTP error 404, File or Directory not found. I do not have URLScan nor have I run IISlockdown tool. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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 the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, or if you believe this email is unsolicited and wish to be removed from any future mailings, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.silversands.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
I looked in the log dir and I only have a route.log and a route.old neither contain and IP or sender data related to this, the 2010 events don't correspond with the loads of garbage ndr's I am seeing either. Could these logs be in another folder? e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
For the record, :), SMTP Protocol Logging doesn't write to the App Event Log, rather it writes to file system files. Knowing how to read SMTP conversations in the protocol log is a "good thing". -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:32 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
It's in the \IMCDATA\LOG directory. There is a .LOG file for each thread in the IMS, so by default there may be as many as 30 of the files. Each line contains the IP address and datestamp. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? In that particular event( app log? ) is there anything else in the description that I can search against to find it quickly? Like sending domain, ip, message id, etc,? e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
For the record those are event 2010 -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
No, it's not bunk. You care about more and that's great but if, like the previous poster, all you care about is that "Once it's picked up by a server from my gateway machine, it's out of my control, and also no longer my worry." then the presence in the chain of a third party is not significant. Your company, I'm sure, has very good reason to want this level of control and very good reason for ensuring it retains that control no matter what the cost but it is not typical. We might all be safer and happier for having our arms round as much of the process as possible, as you do, but it's not practical for everyone and other simply don't care. At some point you have to let go and trust that all will be well, it's just a question of when you decide / want / have to do that. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 16:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? That's complete bunk. I have complete control over where mail entering and leaving my networks is delivered, as well as having full logs of those transactions. Any system sending mail to inovis.com will route to one of 4 boxes under our control - I control the publication of the MX records that point to the 4 boxes which we control. By putting Postini (or any mail outsourcer) into that flow, I have to publish MX records pointing to boxes outside my control. My systems have control of the mail until its handed off to the systems that the receivers have designated as responsible for their mail. In this schenario, I have as much control over email traffic as possible. Putting an ASP SPAM service in the middle creates a situation in which you don't have control over your own mail delivery, and that's not something which my company is willing to give up. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
That's complete bunk. I have complete control over where mail entering and leaving my networks is delivered, as well as having full logs of those transactions. Any system sending mail to inovis.com will route to one of 4 boxes under our control - I control the publication of the MX records that point to the 4 boxes which we control. By putting Postini (or any mail outsourcer) into that flow, I have to publish MX records pointing to boxes outside my control. My systems have control of the mail until its handed off to the systems that the receivers have designated as responsible for their mail. In this schenario, I have as much control over email traffic as possible. Putting an ASP SPAM service in the middle creates a situation in which you don't have control over your own mail delivery, and that's not something which my company is willing to give up. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > If all you care about is out of site, out of mind I still > don't see the > worry - at some point you pass over the handling of these > mail items to > someone else and at that point you have no control. This is > just moving > that boundary / adding another layer beyond it. > > Very few of us outside those who work for ISPs and the like > have control of > more than a tiny fraction of the process and none of us has > enough control > that we can guarantee that the recipients of these mails are > not using this > sort of service. > > > > -Original Message- > From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > Inside the company, all the mail servers were built by me, > and they are > controlled by me. Once it's picked up by a server from my gateway > machine, it's out of my control, and also no longer my worry. > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > recipient or > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > information that > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > intended recipient, > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > it. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and > delete from your system. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
In that particular event( app log? ) is there anything else in the description that I can search against to find it quickly? Like sending domain, ip, message id, etc,? e- -Original Message- From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: SMTP Logging options? IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
For my domain, yes. I have complete control over the systems accepting mail for my domains. That's something which you lose when outsourcing this kind of service. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:44 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > So you only transfer mail within systems over which you have complete > control? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:09 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then again, I'm > apparently a bit of a control freak when it comes to that > kind of thing. > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > recipient or > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > information that > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > intended recipient, > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > it. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and > delete from your system. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
We outsource our virus scanning and spam filtering to cinergy communications. So far it's worked out very well. I must admit that meeting with them is a bit disconcerting - I've got underwear older than most of their technical staff, but they do know their stuff! We debated all the relevant points about security and control, but in the end decided that the benefits outweighed the risks. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 11:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I suppose. Any organisation I've worked for that cares that much uses dedicated networks for data transfer to third parties it has to trust and places controls on what sort of information can be allowed onto public networks. I wouldn't trust the public networks with anything I wanted to keep secret, particularly not if it was not encrypted. But you're right, it does provide an extra opportunity. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 15:51 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I agree, I wouldn't want to run all my internal only mail through a service provider for spam/virus filtering. As for outgoing mail and inbound mail, why make it easy for someone to run a man in the middle intelligence gathering operation against your company? Running all your mail through one easy to access service point makes it very easy for some disgruntled service provider employee (who I don't have any control over), to make copies of all the mail and then black market it. Yes, a M-i-T-M attack can be run on the net, but in order to gather the amounts of data necessary to make it worth while, you need a choke point. You couldn't get enough information about my business if all you did was M-I-T-M my mail going to and from Cisco, or some other vendor like that. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
IMS Diagnostics Logging / SMTP Protocol Logging / Medium You'll need to look for the AUTH handshake. The handshake is done using base64 encoded strings. You can use http://www.securecode.net/Base64Convert+main.html to decode them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SMTP Logging options?
Try cranking up logging in the Priv IS/ "Logons" category. You can also log by protocol ( Pop3 etc.. ) under "Internet Protocols" . -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:18 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: SMTP Logging options? Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
I suppose. Any organisation I've worked for that cares that much uses dedicated networks for data transfer to third parties it has to trust and places controls on what sort of information can be allowed onto public networks. I wouldn't trust the public networks with anything I wanted to keep secret, particularly not if it was not encrypted. But you're right, it does provide an extra opportunity. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 15:51 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I agree, I wouldn't want to run all my internal only mail through a service provider for spam/virus filtering. As for outgoing mail and inbound mail, why make it easy for someone to run a man in the middle intelligence gathering operation against your company? Running all your mail through one easy to access service point makes it very easy for some disgruntled service provider employee (who I don't have any control over), to make copies of all the mail and then black market it. Yes, a M-i-T-M attack can be run on the net, but in order to gather the amounts of data necessary to make it worth while, you need a choke point. You couldn't get enough information about my business if all you did was M-I-T-M my mail going to and from Cisco, or some other vendor like that. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
I agree, I wouldn't want to run all my internal only mail through a service provider for spam/virus filtering. As for outgoing mail and inbound mail, why make it easy for someone to run a man in the middle intelligence gathering operation against your company? Running all your mail through one easy to access service point makes it very easy for some disgruntled service provider employee (who I don't have any control over), to make copies of all the mail and then black market it. Yes, a M-i-T-M attack can be run on the net, but in order to gather the amounts of data necessary to make it worth while, you need a choke point. You couldn't get enough information about my business if all you did was M-I-T-M my mail going to and from Cisco, or some other vendor like that. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:33 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Outsourcing email? Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I totally appreciate Paul's point of not wanting another potential delay that you can't control imposed but the data security aspect I don't understand. Email, if unencrypted, is insecure. If you are emailing something unencrypted outside your organisation you should assume it is public knowledge. I really don't see that adding another handler makes any difference at all. It is by definition no longer "Company Insider" if you've sent it outside the company. Noone was suggesting that mail between internal sites should be routed through this sort of service (Were they? Does anyone really have an internal Spam problem?) -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? Why would you want the control of your un-encrypted, completely open to reading, mission critical, company insider information, mail left to someone outside your control? Do yourself a great big favor by keeping it in house. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: EX2K & DNS Stuff
Leave the DNS settings in Exchange 2000 alone (SMTP VS properties, Delivery, Advanced, configure DNS servers). Instead, let it use the DNS servers that are specified in the TCP/IP properties of the network card. I heard at one point that adding DNS servers to the SMTP VS causes Exchange to perform lookups slower than if you let your DNS servers do the lookups. I'll see if I can find anything to support that, but I know it's been discussed before. Perhaps not here - it could have been another list, but I know it has been discussed. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner & White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Alex Alborzfard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:27 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: EX2K & DNS Stuff Subject: EX2K & DNS Stuff Does EX2K caches the DNS data? If so, what is the default settings and where/how it can be changed? Also can EX2K be configured to use an IP address, instead of the host name in DNS? If so, where/how it can be configured? Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
If all you care about is out of site, out of mind I still don't see the worry - at some point you pass over the handling of these mail items to someone else and at that point you have no control. This is just moving that boundary / adding another layer beyond it. Very few of us outside those who work for ISPs and the like have control of more than a tiny fraction of the process and none of us has enough control that we can guarantee that the recipients of these mails are not using this sort of service. -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? Inside the company, all the mail servers were built by me, and they are controlled by me. Once it's picked up by a server from my gateway machine, it's out of my control, and also no longer my worry. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EX2K & DNS Stuff
Does EX2K caches the DNS data? If so, what is the default settings and where/how it can be changed? Also can EX2K be configured to use an IP address, instead of the host name in DNS? If so, where/how it can be configured? Thanks --Alex Alborzfard _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Man, I can't EVEN believe that I allowed myself to get sucked back into this infernal list again. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone. And the New Year thing. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
I totally appreciate Paul's point of not wanting another potential delay that you can't control imposed but the data security aspect I don't understand. Email, if unencrypted, is insecure. If you are emailing something unencrypted outside your organisation you should assume it is public knowledge. I really don't see that adding another handler makes any difference at all. It is by definition no longer "Company Insider" if you've sent it outside the company. Noone was suggesting that mail between internal sites should be routed through this sort of service (Were they? Does anyone really have an internal Spam problem?) -Original Message- From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 15:03 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? Why would you want the control of your un-encrypted, completely open to reading, mission critical, company insider information, mail left to someone outside your control? Do yourself a great big favor by keeping it in house. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP Logging options?
Exch 5.5 sp4 In a scenario where a end users password has been compromised and is being used to drop spam crap on the internet mail service, what logging options can be used to identify the account that is authenticating? Also is there a way to tie a message id to a specific authenticated user? Much thanks & merry christmas e- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
No. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:51 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Subject: Re: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics Does that make the shop unethical now for not considering any other vendor ? -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: "Erik Sojka" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 10:45 AM Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the types of consulting engagements. One such type: "I want to put in a new email system. Please tell me which system from all of the major players would fit in my environment." Another such type: "I've already decided that Lotus Notes is the email system for me. Please draw from your vendor-specific expertise and help me with my deployment." There are others of course. You seem fixated on the ethical problems that might arise with a vendor-biased consultant being hired for the first of my examples. In this first example, you are completely correct in pointing out the very real conflict of interest. I cannot and should not expect completely neutral recommendations from a person who markets themselves as an expert in $vendor's technology. Logic would dictate that the consultant would recommend the technology that they are affiliated with. You have completely and repeatedly ignored the possibility of the second (and IMO more frequently occurring) type. If I am already running a $vendor shop, I want to hire the best talent I can. I would expect that the best talent I can find would be familiar with $vendor technology. The decision to use a particular vendor has already been made. By me. Without any prodding or cajoling by said consultant. (Remainder of post clipped and recycled) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
Inside the company, all the mail servers were built by me, and they are controlled by me. Once it's picked up by a server from my gateway machine, it's out of my control, and also no longer my worry. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon Posted At: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 9:44 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Outsourcing email? Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? So you only transfer mail within systems over which you have complete control? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 13:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then again, I'm apparently a bit of a control freak when it comes to that kind of thing. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
Why would you want the control of your un-encrypted, completely open to reading, mission critical, company insider information, mail left to someone outside your control? Do yourself a great big favor by keeping it in house. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boyd, Nathan Posted At: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:38 PM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: Outsourcing email? Subject: Outsourcing email? List, What do you think of using an outsourced Spam service like Postini? For our environment it is a choice of using Postini internally (via existing Trend IMSS) or sending all mail via Postini. What do people think of sending mail to another service? Personally I have concerns with SEC and HIPPA; I also worry about rising costs once we are with them, response times for emergency etc. Nathan _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
i can't speak for roger but personally i like knowing that when someone says they've sent us an email and i'm asked if it's arrived that i can look in my maillog and _know_ if it's touched my network server or not and not have to wonder if it's stuck on some third party box because they do our virus/spam filtering and happen to have a bit of a backlog. ditto outgoing mail.. if it's left my server it's left my company.. no need to worry if it's queued on some third parties server. i wouldn't say i'm a control freak, i just like to be able to know what's happening rather than make assumptions about what's happening somewhere beyond my control. regards, Paul -- Paul Hutchings Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd. Tel: 44 (0)24 7635 5378, Fax: 44 (0)24 7635 8378 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 14:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > So you only transfer mail within systems over which you have complete > control? > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:09 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? > > > I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then again, I'm > apparently a bit of a control freak when it comes to that > kind of thing. > > > The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the > recipient or > entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential > information that > is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the > intended recipient, > you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on > it. If you have > received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender > immediately and > delete from your system. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
In the states we call that "inter-office" mail. ;-) Eric Eric Fretz L-3 Communications ComCept Division 2800 Discovery Blvd. Rockwall, TX 75032 tel: 972.772.7501 fax: 972.772.7510 -Original Message- From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? So you only transfer mail within systems over which you have complete control? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 13:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then again, I'm apparently a bit of a control freak when it comes to that kind of thing. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
So you only transfer mail within systems over which you have complete control? -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 December 2003 13:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outsourcing email? I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then again, I'm apparently a bit of a control freak when it comes to that kind of thing. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
I personally don't trust other's handing my mail - then again, I'm apparently a bit of a control freak when it comes to that kind of thing. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Boyd, Nathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 4:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Outsourcing email? > > > List, > > What do you think of using an outsourced Spam service like Postini? > > For our environment it is a choice of using Postini > internally (via existing > Trend IMSS) or sending all mail via Postini. > > What do people think of sending mail to another service? > Personally I have > concerns with SEC and HIPPA; I also worry about rising costs > once we are > with them, response times for emergency etc. > > Nathan > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
I don't care who you are. That's *FUNNY* right there! Barry J. Horner NT Server/Exchange/WWW Administrator Central Community College - Grand Island, NE (V) 308.398.7361(F) 308.398.7399 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K You are not allowed to thank Robert per the "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity Laws of IT Ethics. -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Yes of course it can. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College RM Eunt Domus > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that > Exchange 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on > W2k server. > > Regards > David > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, RG7 3YG > Registered Charity No. 209617 > A company limited by guarantee > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
See! -Original Message- From: David, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 23/12/2003 13:57 To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K I want my compiler! -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Shhh don't worry about him. He's just jealous that Windows Server MVPs get better bribes than Exchange server ones do. > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:53 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Am I allowed to apologise then? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:50 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > You are not allowed to thank Robert per the "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity > Laws of IT Ethics. > > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Yes of course it can. > -- > Robert Moir > Microsoft MVP > Senior IT Systems Engineer > Luton Sixth Form College > RM Eunt Domus > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that Exchange > > 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. > > > > Regards > > David > > > > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, > > RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 A company limited by guarantee > > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
Nor do I really. I'm making it up as I go along. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 23/12/2003 13:57 To: Exchange Discussions Cc: Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K I don't know about that... -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:56 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Shhh don't worry about him. He's just jealous that Windows Server MVPs > get better bribes than Exchange server ones do. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:53 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > Am I allowed to apologise then? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David, Andy > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:50 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > You are not allowed to thank Robert per the > > "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity Laws of IT Ethics. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Robert Moir > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > Yes of course it can. > > -- > > Robert Moir > > Microsoft MVP > > Senior IT Systems Engineer > > Luton Sixth Form College > > RM Eunt Domus > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > > > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm > that Exchange > > > 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. > > > > > > Regards > > > David > > > > > > > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > > Berkshire, > > > RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 > > > A company limited by guarantee > > > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > 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=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTEC
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
I want my compiler! -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Shhh don't worry about him. He's just jealous that Windows Server MVPs get better bribes than Exchange server ones do. > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:53 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Am I allowed to apologise then? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:50 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > You are not allowed to thank Robert per the "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity > Laws of IT Ethics. > > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Yes of course it can. > -- > Robert Moir > Microsoft MVP > Senior IT Systems Engineer > Luton Sixth Form College > RM Eunt Domus > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that Exchange > > 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. > > > > Regards > > David > > > > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, > > RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 A company limited by guarantee > > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
I don't know about that... -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:56 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Shhh don't worry about him. He's just jealous that Windows Server MVPs > get better bribes than Exchange server ones do. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:53 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > Am I allowed to apologise then? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David, Andy > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:50 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > You are not allowed to thank Robert per the > > "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity Laws of IT Ethics. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Robert Moir > > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > Yes of course it can. > > -- > > Robert Moir > > Microsoft MVP > > Senior IT Systems Engineer > > Luton Sixth Form College > > RM Eunt Domus > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > > > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm > that Exchange > > > 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. > > > > > > Regards > > > David > > > > > > > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > > Berkshire, > > > RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 > > > A company limited by guarantee > > > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > > 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=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
Shhh don't worry about him. He's just jealous that Windows Server MVPs get better bribes than Exchange server ones do. > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 13:53 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Am I allowed to apologise then? > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:50 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > You are not allowed to thank Robert per the > "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity Laws of IT Ethics. > > > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > Yes of course it can. > -- > Robert Moir > Microsoft MVP > Senior IT Systems Engineer > Luton Sixth Form College > RM Eunt Domus > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that Exchange > > 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. > > > > Regards > > David > > > > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, > > RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 > > A company limited by guarantee > > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t > 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=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
Am I allowed to apologise then? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David, Andy Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K You are not allowed to thank Robert per the "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity Laws of IT Ethics. -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Yes of course it can. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College RM Eunt Domus > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that Exchange > 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. > > Regards > David > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire, > RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 > A company limited by guarantee > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
You are not allowed to thank Robert per the "Decklerheitsgebot" Purity Laws of IT Ethics. -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Yes of course it can. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College RM Eunt Domus > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that > Exchange 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on > W2k server. > > Regards > David > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, RG7 3YG > Registered Charity No. 209617 > A company limited by guarantee > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
Cheers Robert as I said I just wanted it confirmed ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Moir Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K Yes of course it can. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College RM Eunt Domus > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that > Exchange 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on > W2k server. > > Regards > David > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, RG7 3YG > Registered Charity No. 209617 > A company limited by guarantee > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD
http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/features/win_compare.asp -Original Message- From: Microsoft Exchange List Server [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 6:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: exchange2003 features in a Windows2000AD Hi all, What do you think are the features I am going to lose if I deploy Exchange2003 in a Windows2000 AD(native) domain instead of a Windows2003 AD domain? So far, based on the following article I could lost the InetOrgPerson objects : http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;822591&Product=exch2 003 thx -Eric _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
Yes of course it can. -- Robert Moir Microsoft MVP Senior IT Systems Engineer Luton Sixth Form College RM Eunt Domus > -Original Message- > From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 December 2003 12:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K > > > > I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that > Exchange 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on > W2k server. > > Regards > David > > > Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, > Berkshire, RG7 3YG > Registered Charity No. 209617 > A company limited by guarantee > Registered in England Company No. 291646 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t 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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
Utilise now idea, but it runs on a dual processer w2k here. Kind regards, Kim Schotanus === Kim Schotanus Information Systems Manager INTAS Avenue des Arts 58 B-1000 Brussels Belgium T. +32 2 549 01 11 F. +32 2 549 01 56 === -Original Message- From: Exchange Discussion [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: dinsdag 23 december 2003 13:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that Exchange 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. Regards David Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 A company limited by guarantee Registered in England Company No. 291646 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dual Processor EXCH2K/SVR2K
I would be grateful if anyone would be able to confirm that Exchange 2k is able to utilise dual processor technology on W2k server. Regards David Registered Office: Hillfields, Burghfield Common, Reading, Berkshire, RG7 3YG Registered Charity No. 209617 A company limited by guarantee Registered in England Company No. 291646 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outsourcing email?
We use MessageLabs for virus and Spam filtering. The service we get is generally good & flexible but they do seem to be under-resourced leading to occasional delays in mail processing at their end. We've also had problems with SpamCop & others classing one of their clients as a Spam source and blocking a MessageLabs IP address which results in a proportion of mail being blocked by organisations using the relevant blacklist. Out clients seem to be happy with the Spam blocking though, which was the main purpose of this. -Original Message- From: Boyd, Nathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 21:38 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outsourcing email? List, What do you think of using an outsourced Spam service like Postini? For our environment it is a choice of using Postini internally (via existing Trend IMSS) or sending all mail via Postini. What do people think of sending mail to another service? Personally I have concerns with SEC and HIPPA; I also worry about rising costs once we are with them, response times for emergency etc. Nathan The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
Well, titles can be very handy - we have an honours system in the UK that would seem to back that up. But they are not as valuable as personal reputation as is evidenced by the number of people that refuse these titles on point of principle - often very publicly. (As you have done with your MVP, it occurs to me.) I'd wager that Ed, for example, is proud of his online reputation. He would not want to be seen as being under the influence of Microsoft and if the MVP programme put him in that position or even if he felt it made a significant number of people consider him to be in that position I suspect he would not be pleased. Now 8 out of 10 list members who expressed a preference said their cats couldn't give a rat's rectum about Ed having an MVP so his reputation is intact and he's happy to continue to be an MVP. It is this issue of reputation that keeps the argument alive - not any great love or covetousness of the award. You could slag off Microsoft, Exchange, the MVP programme or the dreadful Christmas sweaters that people are wearing right now and any fuss you managed to produce would die down fairly quickly but it is the suggestion that reputations are tarnished by the acceptance of an MVP award that has got people's backs up to the extent they are. There are plenty of people on here who are not and are never likely to be MVPs but they are still prepared to argue the toss - they have no conflict of interests here, no business built on an ethical manifesto, no supplier plying them with trinkets, no particular reputation of their own to defend and no reason to defend the MVP programme. That they do suggests that they are genuine in their belief that it is harmless. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2003 19:57 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics John, you post some intelligent stuff I have to say. Yes, there is an order of magnitude argument to be had in all of this and you argue it well. I base my position on a couple of premises, but the main argument is: Titles are absolutely priceless and have the potential to be much, much more corrupting than any monetary gift. For proof, I will simply point to this entire discussion now 8 years old. At the mere mention that there *might* be a conflict of interest problem with the MVP title, which is what I posted 8 years ago, it has generated thousands upon thousands of hateful emails, dragged on over 8 YEARS and people STILL cannot let it go. That, in and of itself, proves how corrupting an influence it is. People are SO covetous of it that they cannot abide even the mere SUGGESTION that there might be an ethical conflict. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: HTTP error 404 and OWA
Does OWA work on the back-end server only? Neil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of M2web Posted At: 22 December 2003 21:39 Posted To: Swynk Exchange (30 days) Conversation: HTTP error 404 and OWA Subject: HTTP error 404 and OWA I have a FE/BE configuration with Exchange 2003. When I use the URL http://FE server/Exchange, I get the Window's Security popup but after login I get two frames each of them with HTTP error 404, File or Directory not found. I do not have URLScan nor have I run IISlockdown tool. Any help would be appreciated. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_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 the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands. If you have received this email in error, or if you believe this email is unsolicited and wish to be removed from any future mailings, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.silversands.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
