RE: Outlook 2003.
Two and a half hours ain't bad from what I hear. :) I have yet to go there yet. I know that I left Hazel Dell a couple of weeks ago and thought that there was a really bad accident since the traffic was stopped. I hear that it is nice, but, yeah the traffic sucks from what I have seen. I am not sure what the deal is with it and the county. I know that I get shown "no love" when I offer to check mail connectivity for each concert. I would think that they would want to be certain that it was working!!! :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:53 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Oh man. They need to fix the traffic problem to the amphitheater before they do that :) It took me nearly 2 and a half hours to get out a few weeks ago. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. S Actually, they are sending two of us. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:59 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. And how does little old Clark County have the money to send their sysadmin to two conferences in one year? Sheesh!! Darcy Adams Sr. Exchange Administrator Getty Images Tel 206-925-6617 Cell 206-255-0169 http://www.gettyimages.com Where do you want to ride today? http://www.davidsonbicycles.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. So true Even then I have gotten conflicting answers. I have been told that we have purchased everything. I am just dragging my feet until there is service pack released for Exchange 2003. That is how I got buy-off for skipping 2000 and going straight to 2003. At TechEd they made it seem that the best path from Exchange 5.5 was to go straight to 2003. I am going to Orlando next month and will see what they say there. Thanks again. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:10 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Check with your MS licensing rep for exact details. I was told that each Exchange 2003 CAL includes a license to use Outlook 2003, but not all of Office. I don't believe that you can use Exchange 2000 CAL's do to this, though. Again, to be sure, check with MS. They are the only ones authorized to quote official licensing. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner & White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:07 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Outlook 2003. Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Does Outlook 2003 have the same licensing setup as the other versions? That is, I have an Exchange 2000 server, and licenses for Office 2000. Can I install Outlook 2003 on workstations using the Exchange CALs? Thanks, Erick > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlo Clizer > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. > > > Sure, do it. Outlook 2003 is really nice. We are upgrading from 2000 > straight to 2003. What a difference! > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:51 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Outlook 2003. > > We are currently running Exchange 5.5 and are looking at moving to > Exchange > 2003 and skipping Exchange 2000. We are currently running Outlook 2002 > on our client systems. > > My question is... > > Are there any reasons not to begin moving our client desktops to > Outlook 2003? Does anyone know of any compatibility issues running it > against Exchange 5.5 or having clients with mixed versions aside from > the fact that features that are introduced in Outlook 2003 will not be > available to those clients that still have Outlook 2002? > > I have installed it on my desk and really like it once I have figured > out whe
RE: Outlook 2003.
S Actually, they are sending two of us. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 2:59 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. And how does little old Clark County have the money to send their sysadmin to two conferences in one year? Sheesh!! Darcy Adams Sr. Exchange Administrator Getty Images Tel 206-925-6617 Cell 206-255-0169 http://www.gettyimages.com Where do you want to ride today? http://www.davidsonbicycles.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. So true Even then I have gotten conflicting answers. I have been told that we have purchased everything. I am just dragging my feet until there is service pack released for Exchange 2003. That is how I got buy-off for skipping 2000 and going straight to 2003. At TechEd they made it seem that the best path from Exchange 5.5 was to go straight to 2003. I am going to Orlando next month and will see what they say there. Thanks again. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:10 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Check with your MS licensing rep for exact details. I was told that each Exchange 2003 CAL includes a license to use Outlook 2003, but not all of Office. I don't believe that you can use Exchange 2000 CAL's do to this, though. Again, to be sure, check with MS. They are the only ones authorized to quote official licensing. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner & White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:07 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Outlook 2003. Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Does Outlook 2003 have the same licensing setup as the other versions? That is, I have an Exchange 2000 server, and licenses for Office 2000. Can I install Outlook 2003 on workstations using the Exchange CALs? Thanks, Erick > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlo Clizer > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. > > > Sure, do it. Outlook 2003 is really nice. We are upgrading from 2000 > straight to 2003. What a difference! > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:51 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Outlook 2003. > > We are currently running Exchange 5.5 and are looking at moving to > Exchange > 2003 and skipping Exchange 2000. We are currently running Outlook 2002 > on our client systems. > > My question is... > > Are there any reasons not to begin moving our client desktops to > Outlook 2003? Does anyone know of any compatibility issues running it > against Exchange 5.5 or having clients with mixed versions aside from > the fact that features that are introduced in Outlook 2003 will not be > available to those clients that still have Outlook 2002? > > I have installed it on my desk and really like it once I have figured > out where everything went to. I would like to start putting it on > others so that we can have a more gradual rollout. > > Thanks > > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > _ > 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: h
RE: Outlook 2003.
Definitely third party software. Sometimes it seems like it is more important to them that their niche software works more than Outlook. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Walden H. Leverich III [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 6:44 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Well, if you're going to include 3rd party software: salesforce.com's outlook edition doesn't work -- unloads itself, and their won't-hold-you-to-it time line is 1Q04 for support. Synchronization (intellisync-based) works fine. Also, iHateSpam 3.x is unsupported, although I didn't have any problems with it. -Walden Walden H Leverich III President Tech Software (516) 627-3800 x11 (208) 692-3308 eFax [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TechSoftInc.com Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur. (Whatever is said in Latin seems profound.) -Original Message- From: Ryan Finnesey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 12:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. No only problem I have found is no Blackberry desktop support. Ryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook 2003. We are currently running Exchange 5.5 and are looking at moving to Exchange 2003 and skipping Exchange 2000. We are currently running Outlook 2002 on our client systems. My question is... Are there any reasons not to begin moving our client desktops to Outlook 2003? Does anyone know of any compatibility issues running it against Exchange 5.5 or having clients with mixed versions aside from the fact that features that are introduced in Outlook 2003 will not be available to those clients that still have Outlook 2002? I have installed it on my desk and really like it once I have figured out where everything went to. I would like to start putting it on others so that we can have a more gradual rollout. Thanks Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 _ 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: Outlook 2003.
So true Even then I have gotten conflicting answers. I have been told that we have purchased everything. I am just dragging my feet until there is service pack released for Exchange 2003. That is how I got buy-off for skipping 2000 and going straight to 2003. At TechEd they made it seem that the best path from Exchange 5.5 was to go straight to 2003. I am going to Orlando next month and will see what they say there. Thanks again. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:10 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Check with your MS licensing rep for exact details. I was told that each Exchange 2003 CAL includes a license to use Outlook 2003, but not all of Office. I don't believe that you can use Exchange 2000 CAL's do to this, though. Again, to be sure, check with MS. They are the only ones authorized to quote official licensing. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner & White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, October 16, 2003 1:07 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: Outlook 2003. Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. Does Outlook 2003 have the same licensing setup as the other versions? That is, I have an Exchange 2000 server, and licenses for Office 2000. Can I install Outlook 2003 on workstations using the Exchange CALs? Thanks, Erick > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlo Clizer > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook 2003. > > > Sure, do it. Outlook 2003 is really nice. We are upgrading from 2000 > straight to 2003. What a difference! > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:51 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Outlook 2003. > > We are currently running Exchange 5.5 and are looking at moving to > Exchange > 2003 and skipping Exchange 2000. We are currently running Outlook 2002 > on our client systems. > > My question is... > > Are there any reasons not to begin moving our client desktops to > Outlook 2003? Does anyone know of any compatibility issues running it > against Exchange 5.5 or having clients with mixed versions aside from > the fact that features that are introduced in Outlook 2003 will not be > available to those clients that still have Outlook 2002? > > I have installed it on my desk and really like it once I have figured > out where everything went to. I would like to start putting it on > others so that we can have a more gradual rollout. > > Thanks > > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > _ > 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]
Outlook 2003.
We are currently running Exchange 5.5 and are looking at moving to Exchange 2003 and skipping Exchange 2000. We are currently running Outlook 2002 on our client systems. My question is... Are there any reasons not to begin moving our client desktops to Outlook 2003? Does anyone know of any compatibility issues running it against Exchange 5.5 or having clients with mixed versions aside from the fact that features that are introduced in Outlook 2003 will not be available to those clients that still have Outlook 2002? I have installed it on my desk and really like it once I have figured out where everything went to. I would like to start putting it on others so that we can have a more gradual rollout. Thanks Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 _ 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: Emails per day
Ewww! Very Ewww!! Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 12:38 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Emails per day Does that make me Scharff's Pimp? -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 2:56 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Emails per day > > > I will do that. > > Mr. Scharff? > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:03 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: Emails per day > > > I have a copy of the eval that I have yet to install - we're > looking at Foglight and they suggested it as an add on. > > The demo's I saw were nice. Its also priced correctly for my > environment (<600 users). It struck me as it might be > expensive for larger deployments. I'd look at MessageOne for > larger deployments. > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis Inc. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:37 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Emails per day > > > > > > Anyone have any opinions on Quest's MessageStats? I just > got the dog > > and pony yesterday and would be interested in what people thought > > about it that use or have evaluated it. Why did you go with it? Why > > didn't you. > > > > Ken Powell > > Systems Administrator > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Randy Roffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:50 AM > > To: Exchange 5.5 List > > Subject: Re: Emails per day > > > > > > Hypersoft - OmniAnalyser > > Quest - MessageStats > > NetIQ- AppAnalyzer > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Busby, Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:43 AM > > Subject: Emails per day > > > > > > This could well be a dumb question but, we've been asked to > find out > > how many e-mails are sent in a single day. Now we could > check at the > > firewall/mail gateway but that'd only get outbound/inbound mail. > > Perfmon might give a clue (if we could stand that > performance hit) and > > we can monitor disk growth, but does anybody know a simple way to > > assess how many emails per day are sent both internally and > > externally. Thanks. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Arch
RE: Emails per day
I will do that. Mr. Scharff? Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 8:03 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Emails per day I have a copy of the eval that I have yet to install - we're looking at Foglight and they suggested it as an add on. The demo's I saw were nice. Its also priced correctly for my environment (<600 users). It struck me as it might be expensive for larger deployments. I'd look at MessageOne for larger deployments. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:37 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Emails per day > > > Anyone have any opinions on Quest's MessageStats? I just got > the dog and pony yesterday and would be interested in what > people thought about it that use or have evaluated it. Why > did you go with it? Why didn't you. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > -Original Message- > From: Randy Roffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:50 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: Re: Emails per day > > > Hypersoft - OmniAnalyser > Quest - MessageStats > NetIQ- AppAnalyzer > > > - Original Message - > From: "Busby, Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:43 AM > Subject: Emails per day > > > This could well be a dumb question but, we've been asked to > find out how many e-mails are sent in a single day. Now we > could check at the firewall/mail gateway but that'd only get > outbound/inbound mail. Perfmon might give a clue (if we could > stand that performance hit) and we can monitor disk growth, > but does anybody know a simple way to assess how many emails > per day are sent both internally and externally. Thanks. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Emails per day
Anyone have any opinions on Quest's MessageStats? I just got the dog and pony yesterday and would be interested in what people thought about it that use or have evaluated it. Why did you go with it? Why didn't you. Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Randy Roffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 10:50 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Re: Emails per day Hypersoft - OmniAnalyser Quest - MessageStats NetIQ- AppAnalyzer - Original Message - From: "Busby, Jacob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 8:43 AM Subject: Emails per day This could well be a dumb question but, we've been asked to find out how many e-mails are sent in a single day. Now we could check at the firewall/mail gateway but that'd only get outbound/inbound mail. Perfmon might give a clue (if we could stand that performance hit) and we can monitor disk growth, but does anybody know a simple way to assess how many emails per day are sent both internally and externally. Thanks. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5
Martin, Good reason for me too. If I could have bailed at Groupshield 4.03 I would have in a heartbeat and never looked back!! Man, that one S*CKED! I never had the luxury of even being allowed to look at Trend, Sybari, etc. McAfee finally started getting it somewhat right by Groupshield 4.51 sp1 and now GSE 5.0 for Exchange 5.5 has been pretty rock solid so far. I don't know about how it works with Exchange 2000. I guess I will find out soon. That is the problem that I face now. McAfee has gotten us through the last several major outbreaks without any infections (with the exception of those people that like to go out to their web-based mail and pull things in.) I can't expect Groupshield to catch those. But as soon as something tries to enter Exchange, it catches it. We stayed with McAfee long enough for them to get it right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 5:27 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 I used the 4.x version until my company got ravaged by a virus it should have caught. That's enough reason for me. 99% good isn't good enough. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 14:19 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 That's it. Get your cup on!!! :) Actually, Martin have you tried it or are you just going by what you may have heard? NAI used to have some well deserved criticisms but this version is actually pretty good. Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:27 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Its slightly better than nothing! -Original Message- From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Hello All, We are running GroupShield 4.5 SP 1 on Exchange 5.5 on NT 4 SP 5. We are considering upgrading to GroupShield 5.0 SP 1. What experience have people had with this product. I have heard good words about it, but we have been burned by NAI in the past. For example, we really would like to know if we have to update the OS to SP 6a. I realize that the release notes state that GroupShield 5.0 will run on NT 4 SP 4, but we ran into a problem last year that was related to service packs. Thanks in advance for your help. Chris Chris Tanner AECL Chalk River, Ont. Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5
Pretty good. I have never had to wait on hold for more than 2 minutes and they have always stayed with it until the issue was resolved. We have "Connect Support" I don't know about others. Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:07 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 And how's their tech support these days? -Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 14:19 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 That's it. Get your cup on!!! :) Actually, Martin have you tried it or are you just going by what you may have heard? NAI used to have some well deserved criticisms but this version is actually pretty good. Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:27 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Its slightly better than nothing! -Original Message- From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Hello All, We are running GroupShield 4.5 SP 1 on Exchange 5.5 on NT 4 SP 5. We are considering upgrading to GroupShield 5.0 SP 1. What experience have people had with this product. I have heard good words about it, but we have been burned by NAI in the past. For example, we really would like to know if we have to update the OS to SP 6a. I realize that the release notes state that GroupShield 5.0 will run on NT 4 SP 4, but we ran into a problem last year that was related to service packs. Thanks in advance for your help. Chris Chris Tanner AECL Chalk River, Ont. Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5
That's it. Get your cup on!!! :) Actually, Martin have you tried it or are you just going by what you may have heard? NAI used to have some well deserved criticisms but this version is actually pretty good. Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:27 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Its slightly better than nothing! -Original Message- From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Hello All, We are running GroupShield 4.5 SP 1 on Exchange 5.5 on NT 4 SP 5. We are considering upgrading to GroupShield 5.0 SP 1. What experience have people had with this product. I have heard good words about it, but we have been burned by NAI in the past. For example, we really would like to know if we have to update the OS to SP 6a. I realize that the release notes state that GroupShield 5.0 will run on NT 4 SP 4, but we ran into a problem last year that was related to service packs. Thanks in advance for your help. Chris Chris Tanner AECL Chalk River, Ont. Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5
We have been running it for the last six months or so with no problems. It has worked even better than 4.51 SP6a which was good as well. Why not go to sp6a? Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Chris tanner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 11:39 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: GroupShield vs. 5.0 on Exchange 5.5 Hello All, We are running GroupShield 4.5 SP 1 on Exchange 5.5 on NT 4 SP 5. We are considering upgrading to GroupShield 5.0 SP 1. What experience have people had with this product. I have heard good words about it, but we have been burned by NAI in the past. For example, we really would like to know if we have to update the OS to SP 6a. I realize that the release notes state that GroupShield 5.0 will run on NT 4 SP 4, but we ran into a problem last year that was related to service packs. Thanks in advance for your help. Chris Chris Tanner AECL Chalk River, Ont. Canada _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: how to prevent logon during move mailbox
I'm not sure about Exchange 2000 but with Exchange 5.5 I change the primary NT account name that has access to it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Microsoft Exchange List Server [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:47 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: how to prevent logon during move mailbox MSX2000+SP3 1 forest Do we have any Qarticle explaining how to prevent logon during an exchage 2000 move mailbox process? I have tried the article below it does work for msx2000 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;218920 thanks, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New SMTP address generation in 5.5
The only thing that I would add (and I shutter to do so to a message from Ed) is that the capitalization of the "SMTP" will make that their default reply address. If you are just trying to give them an additional address, then do not capitalize "smtp". Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:34 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: New SMTP address generation in 5.5 You're right that this is not in the feature set of Exchange 5.5; it doesn't have any automatic feature. As my fellow Jew Andy David [1] suggests, a low-cost [2] method to do this is through directory import. And to help you out tonight [3] I'll tell you that the attribute you need is "Secondary-Proxy-Addresses"; put the data in the format "SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]". [1] Wait a minute--Andy David's not Jewish. [4] [2] Free, actually [3] I'm in a good mood because the Giants won [4] But I am, at least by blood Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Sean Winters Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 6:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New SMTP address generation in 5.5 We are adding a new email domain to our existing 5.5 org. What is the easiest way to automagically add the new "@newdomainname.org" to the existing users addresses? It looks like 2K has an address generation tool for such things but I can't find anything for 5.5. Any suggestions? Thanks! Sean _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Installing GroupShield Exchange 4.5
I would echo what Bill and Phil said about skipping 4.5 and going with GSE 5.0. Also, if you are an NAI/McAfee shop and using ePO be careful to configure ePO for GSE 5 as well. I made that mistake and was just about to call tech support because none of the settings that I would make in Groupshield would stick. It turned out that I had neglected to configure the settings in ePO and every time that Groupshield would talk to the ePO server it would overwrite the settings that I had made with the settings in ePO, meaning NO SETTINGS. Once I saw figured that out it has run smoothly ever since. Much better than previous efforts. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Untung Tanamal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:04 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Installing GroupShield Exchange 4.5 I am preparing to install Group Shield Exchange 4.5 to my Exchange 5.5 w/ SP4. Anybody with any feedback, input warning, sugestion would be greatly appriciated. Untung Tanamal _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible New Virus?
That seems to be their answer to everything lately. I got the full court press to go to the e500 as well. The only thing that really intrigues me is the ability to check/scan/stop web-based mail as well. WS SMTP has really worked well for us. I have not had the problems that others have had it seems with support. I take that back, I did used to have problems until we upped our support to a higher level. I never wait more than 1 minute and get escalated pretty quickly. Also, the TVDUG on Yahoo groups has a lot of NAI back line support people on it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:19 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Yeh I looked at the small applianceand went round them bend with them on how they bundle itIt was pathetic the answers I got.. Boiled down to too much $$ for me and they where going to jam their hardware down my thought, and they wouldn't play nicedid sound cool... Tech suppI find it hit and miss.. had good... had bad... bill -Original Message- From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:09 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Although their tech sup is terrifically stupid(imo) that webshield appliance is sweet. We dumped our desktop NAI solution based on the lack of expertise of their tech supp department, once they came back and told us once that they wern't sure if they could support the Groupshield product anymore we knew we were in trouble. -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? possible...But when I "talked with disgust.." a bit with NAI on the phone about WS-SMTP and this...and basically their response was..Yep...it'll miss'em...IF you really want to get them, then buy our Websheild Applicane.. bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? I have believe that I have stopped FW:, FW:, FW: ,etc. before. I think that this is really the problem/danger with WS. It will work flawlessly on one installation and completely miss on others. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:28 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Note do not assume the WS product will catch the EXE. If it is in the first layer then yes likely it will. BUT if it happens to be in like 2 or more layers (layer..I mean FW > FW..etc) it will miss it...every time But yes GS should then get it...if it's working right ;-) bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT files, it has been catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my ePO records do not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files had not been up to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it that far since it is running the same engine and dat versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message-
RE: Possible New Virus?
I think that you may be confusing what he was saying. I think that Bill was talking about WS (Webshield SMTP) not being able to or missing attachments that are further down due to multiple forwarding. What you are talking about having done with your Linux box and Qmail is basically what is being done with WS. I block as I am sure Bill does multiple attachment types so if the attachment comes in disguised as a WAV file it gets blocked as well. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 8:21 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? So far, we have stopped two instances of the Fretham.e variant of this virus. However, we use a little bit different security model than some of you folks do. Our mail relay box is a Linux box, running Qmail. We block quite a list of file extensions at that point. Now...whether it's because of the Linux part or the Qmail part, our mail relayer sees through the extension spoofing that these particular virii employ. We have updated all of our IE deployments to patch the vulnerability employed by this virus. The BadTrans, Klez and SirCam viruses all use this same blended threat mechanism. Keep in mind however, that while your GS is not scanning attachments because they are several layers deep in the forwarding process, that your GS is probably also not scanning attachments that appear to be different file types than they really are, due to extension spoofing. All of these virii allow attached files to look as if they are a different file type. For example, you are blocking .exe files, but due to certain vulnerabilities, the attachment appears as a .wav file to a Windows machine and you're not blocking .wav files, so it lets it through. When the worm arrives by email, it uses both an IFRAME exploit and a MIME exploit, which allow the virus to be executed when you read or even preview the file. Information and a patch for MIME exploit can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-020.asp. The Frethem.E write-up can be found at http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/pf/w32.frethem.e@mm. html Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Note do not assume the WS product will catch the EXE. If it is in the first layer then yes likely it will. BUT if it happens to be in like 2 or more layers (layer..I mean FW > FW..etc) it will miss it...every time But yes GS should then get it...if it's working right ;-) bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT files, it has been catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my ePO records do not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files had not been up to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it that far since it is running the same engine and dat versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same
RE: Possible New Virus?
I have believe that I have stopped FW:, FW:, FW: ,etc. before. I think that this is really the problem/danger with WS. It will work flawlessly on one installation and completely miss on others. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:28 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Note do not assume the WS product will catch the EXE. If it is in the first layer then yes likely it will. BUT if it happens to be in like 2 or more layers (layer..I mean FW > FW..etc) it will miss it...every time But yes GS should then get it...if it's working right ;-) bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 7:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT files, it has been catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my ePO records do not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files had not been up to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it that far since it is running the same engine and dat versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > don't have anything on it. > > -Peter > > > __ > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > this message to anyone else. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: Possible New Virus?
That may be true. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:52 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? But it couldn't be W32.Frethem.E@mm either, as that one was only discovered yesterday. I haven't seen nearly as many MIME Exploits as you have, but the ones I have seen can be identified as Klez by the distinctive subject lines, and the obviously spoofed from addresses. I think maybe they were Klezes that had their attachments removed by someone else's AV software, leaving the exploit still in place. -Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 16:43 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? No, I can see numbers for all of the Klez variations as well (eml = 6, e = 2, h = 58, dam = 4). MIME Exploit = 326. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:37 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? I think any that you received before yesterday must've been from the klez virus, which uses the same exploit. I've seen a few of those myself. -Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 16:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT files, it has been catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my ePO records do not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files had not been up to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it that far since it is running the same engine and dat versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > don't have anything on it. > > -Peter > > > __ > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > this message to anyone else. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resou
RE: Possible New Virus?
No, I can see numbers for all of the Klez variations as well (eml = 6, e = 2, h = 58, dam = 4). MIME Exploit = 326. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:37 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? I think any that you received before yesterday must've been from the klez virus, which uses the same exploit. I've seen a few of those myself. -Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 16:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT files, it has been catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my ePO records do not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files had not been up to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it that far since it is running the same engine and dat versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > don't have anything on it. > > -Peter > > > __ > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > this message to anyone else. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __ This message is private or privileged. If you are not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to anyone else. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange
RE: Possible New Virus?
Webshield SMTP 4.51 MR1a with engine 4160. As far as DAT files, it has been catching it since as far back as the middle of last month (my ePO records do not go back any further.) Even if the engine and DAT files had not been up to date WS would have stopped it due to us blocking all executables. I would assume that GS would have caught it if it had made it that far since it is running the same engine and dat versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:55 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > don't have anything on it. > > -Peter > > > __ > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > this message to anyone else. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Possible New Virus?
We have been seeing it for a couple of days. McAfee has been reporting it as Exploit-MIME.gen. I just got something from Sophos giving it the name that John reported it as. It has been showing up quite a lot lately. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Possible New Virus? Appears to be a Frethem Worm. From Norton: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] l John J. Steniger Network and Security Manager Familymeds, Inc. Phone: 860-676-1222 X633 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.familymeds.com > -Original Message- > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 1:22 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Possible New Virus? > > > Hi All, > I've seen several messages coming in this morning with the > subject line Re: Your Password!, an attachment named > decrypt-password.exe, and the same Content-Type: audio/x-midi > that Klez uses to auto-run. The messages are 50k or so in > size. Is anyone else seeing this? My usual virus info sources > don't have anything on it. > > -Peter > > > __ > This message is private or privileged. If you are not the > person for whom this message is intended, please delete it > and notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send > this message to anyone else. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Other Exchange mailing lists?
While on the topic, true fish tacos are now making it to the Pacific Northwest. Rubio's has landed in Portland and will soon make it across the river to Vancouver. I was just on the MEC page and they mentioned " full-range of food". Will that include our beloved fish tacos? If so, that should be added under the Benefit of Attending link. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mitchell Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? that I believe is fish tacos. -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, 24 May, 2002 12:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? Me...I learned about fisk taco's and some exchange stuff too. -Original Message- From: Etts, Russell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? Hi there I agree. Yes, there is allot of goofing around - but that is why I have a delete key on the keyboard. I normally just ask questions - I'm still learning. But the day your boss comes to you and asks you to post something on that "great newsgroup" you're on, it's worth it's weight in gold :). I hope you stay. I think you'll find there is allot of very useful information here. Thanks Russell -Original Message- From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? However, 100% of _your_ mail is allowed to be off-topic bitching ? Your insulting characterizations of the membership of this list is not borne out by the many many people that regularly comment on how this list has helped them become a better Exchange professionals. I am one of those. If someone wants to flame me or have some fun at my expense, it's OK. The purpose of my subscription is to maintain the investment my company has made in Exchange, not to maintain my self-esteem. Jim Helfer WTW Architects Pittsburgh PA -Original Mes sage- From: Jon Butler (Mailing Lists) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 11:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? This is precisely what I'm talking about. I don't have a problem having fun, but I do have a problem when 70% of list traffic is people being silly. I apologize that my needs do not fit into your sandbox; I'll look for another list. Thanks for being candid with me. > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:56 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? > > > The carebear list shut down. Too many people were getting the > flu from all the hugging. > e > -Original Message- > From: Thomas Di Nardo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:53 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Other Exchange mailing lists? > > > Your solution can be found at the bottom of your email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There is more knowledge on this list than you can imagine. We just prefer to have a bit of fun during the day too. It helps make up for the "What is ScanMail and what is it used for?" Questions. If you don't like it, request a refund and go try the CareBears list. It's down the road and to the left. Tom. -Original Message- From: Jon Butler (Mailing Lists) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 10:48 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Other Exchange mailing lists? Can someone please recommend an Exchange mailing list with more skilled professionals and less comedians? All this useless chatter is driving me up the wall ... _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: Conference Board Calendar
Should have read "I just logged in with the username and password of the account that was associated with the RESOURCE." Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:06 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I just logged in with the username and password of the account that was associated with the. Another way would be to log in as the account that is Service Account Admin. Once you get to the Outlook Web Access Log on screen enter the name of the resource as it appears in the GAL. You should then be prompted to reenter your password for the account and then you are good to go. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:24 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar But how did you log in to the folder using OWA though? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I believe that it was Lori Hunter that turned me on to being able to log in to it using the OWA client and then find the offender. I had the same problem with it locking up the client when they attempted to open the folder. My problems were due to running the autoaccept script AND giving users that ability to do direct booking. Ever since I removed the ability to do direct bookings I have not seen the problem return. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Using OWA? You mean Outlook Web Access? How? I am completely lost guys. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have also been able to find it using OWA. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have never heard of it. Are we talking about the old MS Exchange Client? -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the Gateway Mail client at all at the Microsoft site. I will keep looking. If any of you find a different site, please let me know. Thanks! -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar No, I mean Gateway Mail client. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You mean GroupWise client? I will try that. Thanks! rama -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Download the GW Client from microsoft and move everything out of the calendar folder and start moving stuff back in until you figure out which request is the culprit. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar PST FILE Egads man, don't you have a SERVER? My question mark key is acting weird. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I did setup a profile for this conference room and I was able to open up the pst file and I can view everything but as soon as I click on Calendar, that's it. It freezes up. What should I do? How do I switch by category or by recurrence? Any ideas? Thanks again for all the help. rama -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto
RE: Conference Board Calendar
I just logged in with the username and password of the account that was associated with the. Another way would be to log in as the account that is Service Account Admin. Once you get to the Outlook Web Access Log on screen enter the name of the resource as it appears in the GAL. You should then be prompted to reenter your password for the account and then you are good to go. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:24 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar But how did you log in to the folder using OWA though? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I believe that it was Lori Hunter that turned me on to being able to log in to it using the OWA client and then find the offender. I had the same problem with it locking up the client when they attempted to open the folder. My problems were due to running the autoaccept script AND giving users that ability to do direct booking. Ever since I removed the ability to do direct bookings I have not seen the problem return. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Using OWA? You mean Outlook Web Access? How? I am completely lost guys. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have also been able to find it using OWA. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have never heard of it. Are we talking about the old MS Exchange Client? -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the Gateway Mail client at all at the Microsoft site. I will keep looking. If any of you find a different site, please let me know. Thanks! -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar No, I mean Gateway Mail client. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You mean GroupWise client? I will try that. Thanks! rama -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Download the GW Client from microsoft and move everything out of the calendar folder and start moving stuff back in until you figure out which request is the culprit. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar PST FILE Egads man, don't you have a SERVER? My question mark key is acting weird. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I did setup a profile for this conference room and I was able to open up the pst file and I can view everything but as soon as I click on Calendar, that's it. It freezes up. What should I do? How do I switch by category or by recurrence? Any ideas? Thanks again for all the help. rama -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You probably have a corrupt calendar entry in there. Set up a profile for this conference room, open the PST, switch to By Category or By Recurrence view and copy only the NON-RECURRING meetings back into the original calendar. Then you can start looking for the culprit recurring meeting [1]. Look for meetings with lots of exceptions or blank subject lines or that have
RE: Conference Board Calendar
I believe that it was Lori Hunter that turned me on to being able to log in to it using the OWA client and then find the offender. I had the same problem with it locking up the client when they attempted to open the folder. My problems were due to running the autoaccept script AND giving users that ability to do direct booking. Ever since I removed the ability to do direct bookings I have not seen the problem return. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:37 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Using OWA? You mean Outlook Web Access? How? I am completely lost guys. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have also been able to find it using OWA. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have never heard of it. Are we talking about the old MS Exchange Client? -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the Gateway Mail client at all at the Microsoft site. I will keep looking. If any of you find a different site, please let me know. Thanks! -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar No, I mean Gateway Mail client. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You mean GroupWise client? I will try that. Thanks! rama -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Download the GW Client from microsoft and move everything out of the calendar folder and start moving stuff back in until you figure out which request is the culprit. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar PST FILE Egads man, don't you have a SERVER? My question mark key is acting weird. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I did setup a profile for this conference room and I was able to open up the pst file and I can view everything but as soon as I click on Calendar, that's it. It freezes up. What should I do? How do I switch by category or by recurrence? Any ideas? Thanks again for all the help. rama -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You probably have a corrupt calendar entry in there. Set up a profile for this conference room, open the PST, switch to By Category or By Recurrence view and copy only the NON-RECURRING meetings back into the original calendar. Then you can start looking for the culprit recurring meeting [1]. Look for meetings with lots of exceptions or blank subject lines or that have a conflict icon next to it. Serdar Soysal [1] It is a recurring meeting 99% of the time. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Conference Board Calendar Hello everyone, We are currently running exchange 5.5 SP4. Recently all of our users including the exchange admin account are unable to open the conference room's calendar to view who has booked the room. Everyone can request the conference room and only the receptionist is able to view the conference room's calendar to accept and reject the requests. Even she can only do it for one day that is just for today. If she tries to look it up for tomorrow or next week, then it just hangs, and I see that it tries to Synchronize for hours. This issue just started recently as far as I know. What can I do to resolve this issue? Please help. I even tried to recreate th
RE: Conference Board Calendar
I have also been able to find it using OWA. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:20 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I have never heard of it. Are we talking about the old MS Exchange Client? -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Am I missing something here? I can't seem to find the Gateway Mail client at all at the Microsoft site. I will keep looking. If any of you find a different site, please let me know. Thanks! -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 1:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar No, I mean Gateway Mail client. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You mean GroupWise client? I will try that. Thanks! rama -Original Message- From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar Download the GW Client from microsoft and move everything out of the calendar folder and start moving stuff back in until you figure out which request is the culprit. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar PST FILE Egads man, don't you have a SERVER? My question mark key is acting weird. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 2:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar I did setup a profile for this conference room and I was able to open up the pst file and I can view everything but as soon as I click on Calendar, that's it. It freezes up. What should I do? How do I switch by category or by recurrence? Any ideas? Thanks again for all the help. rama -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Board Calendar You probably have a corrupt calendar entry in there. Set up a profile for this conference room, open the PST, switch to By Category or By Recurrence view and copy only the NON-RECURRING meetings back into the original calendar. Then you can start looking for the culprit recurring meeting [1]. Look for meetings with lots of exceptions or blank subject lines or that have a conflict icon next to it. Serdar Soysal [1] It is a recurring meeting 99% of the time. -Original Message- From: Rama Arumugam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Conference Board Calendar Hello everyone, We are currently running exchange 5.5 SP4. Recently all of our users including the exchange admin account are unable to open the conference room's calendar to view who has booked the room. Everyone can request the conference room and only the receptionist is able to view the conference room's calendar to accept and reject the requests. Even she can only do it for one day that is just for today. If she tries to look it up for tomorrow or next week, then it just hangs, and I see that it tries to Synchronize for hours. This issue just started recently as far as I know. What can I do to resolve this issue? Please help. I even tried to recreate the mail box and it doesn't work. Meaning, even after I created a .pst file and put the data back into the new mail box that I created, it still does the same thing..it just freezes up if you try to look up the information for more than one day. Any way to clean this up or resolve this issue. Thanks everyone. rama _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ:
RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments
Bill, Now I understand the "Webshield[1] Lite" comment. I got the same spiel from them as well wanting me to go to the e500 web appliance. The one thing that I saw that it did offer that the WebshieldSMTP product did not offer was that it could scan webmail based mail such as Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. As for the traffic from your Groupwise associate, does it come in through the IMS or via a different connector? If it doesn't come in via the IMS Webshield will not see it. I also see what you mean by embedded attachments. I guess I don't have that problem since I block .eml and .msg attachments. The WAV files should be getting blocked. I have not been finding that any are getting by. [1] Chris Scharff may be right about NAI after all. When I did a spell check on Webshield it suggested "Weaseled". Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:58 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments OkIve been running the webshield for about a year or so now, got the patch in too. so for instance "My better half" (the less eval half) is on a Groupwise system. If she sends me an attachment or better if she forwards me something that has an attachment. It will get through. A call I made to NAI basically was confirmed on this and some other talked which to me indicted confirmation that WS is very light weight (it works, I like it, I know how far I can trust it, it's better then nothing). WS does not scan into nested attachments in the GW case I would see her forward, the attachment would be in a msg format that I could open and then see the orginal attachment which could be anything! Lot's of other things get by due to this. I se a lot of WAV files get nabbed at the GS451 on the exch box cuz WS missed it. Now the GS451 on the exch box get's it, but due to the fact that it was nested attachment WS missed it. I beat up the phone tech pretty good on this. And What I feel I got was..well..if you need something better. You should use our Webshield Appliance. OK well that was my answer from them..ok...I get it... bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments Really, I just sent a test to mine and it blocked it. An email for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (CC to '_') from with the subject line Link Test has broken a Content Filter rule. The email has been blocked.(from user SYSTEM running WebShield 4.5 MR1a '_') I am not sure what you mean by the FULL version. If you have TVD, Total Virus Defense suite or AVD, Active Virus Defense suite you have a full no holds barred product. My filter is simply blocking *.lnk attachments. Also, I do not know what you mean by "nested" attachments. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:22 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments Thx I talked to NAI the other day about this and GS451 will not do it. They said the GS5 will not either. Yes I too run the websheild(included with TVD..I have no idea about the full version) on a box prior to my exch55 server. But it misses a lot of attachments. It is not capable of scan nested attachments etc. OK on the virus.. poor on attachment blocking. I was just hoping maybe someone out there was do somethign similar with another product. As I am up on my contract with NAI...and am unsure if I will stay with it. thx bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments I am not sure that 4.51 will do this. Groupshield 5.0 may, I will have to check. We currently use Webshield to handle the blocking of the internal attachments much as David Cook said that he does with MailMarshal. It appears that this may be yet another case of how woefully inadequate Groupshield is when compared to anything else. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:48 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subje
RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments
I just heard back from backline support at NAI and their answer was that No, Groupshield in and of itself can not selectively allow and disallow. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:17 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments I am not sure that 4.51 will do this. Groupshield 5.0 may, I will have to check. We currently use Webshield to handle the blocking of the internal attachments much as David Cook said that he does with MailMarshal. It appears that this may be yet another case of how woefully inadequate Groupshield is when compared to anything else. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:48 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments Can anyone tell me if any of the AV software(s) used by any of you for Exchange have the ability to selectively allow attachments in the system In other words I want internal people to be able to send LNK's(links) for things for the internal network. BUT I do not want any incoming e-mail via IMS w/attachments with say LNK to make it in. Ex. Ive got GS451 on Exch55sp4 and it's set to block all LNK attachments. Unfortunately it blocks them internally also; and it's a bit of a pain when I want to e-mail a new Link to my users. NAI as no way to mod GS451 to allow selective internal/external blocking type stuff. Looks like GS451 goes into the IS and not say just interacting with the IMS. any ideas would be appreciated FYI: Exch55sp4 on NT4sp6a Hey..You in the back row stop laughing at the GS451...it finally works "normally" after 6 call's to tech support ;-) thx bill _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments
Really, I just sent a test to mine and it blocked it. An email for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (CC to '_') from with the subject line Link Test has broken a Content Filter rule. The email has been blocked.(from user SYSTEM running WebShield 4.5 MR1a '_') I am not sure what you mean by the FULL version. If you have TVD, Total Virus Defense suite or AVD, Active Virus Defense suite you have a full no holds barred product. My filter is simply blocking *.lnk attachments. Also, I do not know what you mean by "nested" attachments. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 9:22 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments Thx I talked to NAI the other day about this and GS451 will not do it. They said the GS5 will not either. Yes I too run the websheild(included with TVD..I have no idea about the full version) on a box prior to my exch55 server. But it misses a lot of attachments. It is not capable of scan nested attachments etc. OK on the virus.. poor on attachment blocking. I was just hoping maybe someone out there was do somethign similar with another product. As I am up on my contract with NAI...and am unsure if I will stay with it. thx bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments I am not sure that 4.51 will do this. Groupshield 5.0 may, I will have to check. We currently use Webshield to handle the blocking of the internal attachments much as David Cook said that he does with MailMarshal. It appears that this may be yet another case of how woefully inadequate Groupshield is when compared to anything else. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:48 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments Can anyone tell me if any of the AV software(s) used by any of you for Exchange have the ability to selectively allow attachments in the system In other words I want internal people to be able to send LNK's(links) for things for the internal network. BUT I do not want any incoming e-mail via IMS w/attachments with say LNK to make it in. Ex. Ive got GS451 on Exch55sp4 and it's set to block all LNK attachments. Unfortunately it blocks them internally also; and it's a bit of a pain when I want to e-mail a new Link to my users. NAI as no way to mod GS451 to allow selective internal/external blocking type stuff. Looks like GS451 goes into the IS and not say just interacting with the IMS. any ideas would be appreciated FYI: Exch55sp4 on NT4sp6a Hey..You in the back row stop laughing at the GS451...it finally works "normally" after 6 call's to tech support ;-) thx bill _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments
I am not sure that 4.51 will do this. Groupshield 5.0 may, I will have to check. We currently use Webshield to handle the blocking of the internal attachments much as David Cook said that he does with MailMarshal. It appears that this may be yet another case of how woefully inadequate Groupshield is when compared to anything else. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:48 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: gen. AV software(s) Q' int/ext blk/no blk attachments Can anyone tell me if any of the AV software(s) used by any of you for Exchange have the ability to selectively allow attachments in the system In other words I want internal people to be able to send LNK's(links) for things for the internal network. BUT I do not want any incoming e-mail via IMS w/attachments with say LNK to make it in. Ex. Ive got GS451 on Exch55sp4 and it's set to block all LNK attachments. Unfortunately it blocks them internally also; and it's a bit of a pain when I want to e-mail a new Link to my users. NAI as no way to mod GS451 to allow selective internal/external blocking type stuff. Looks like GS451 goes into the IS and not say just interacting with the IMS. any ideas would be appreciated FYI: Exch55sp4 on NT4sp6a Hey..You in the back row stop laughing at the GS451...it finally works "normally" after 6 call's to tech support ;-) thx bill _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Groupshield for Exchange 2k
Pithy, very pithy :) Bill O'Reilly would be proud of you. As I have said before, I have had very little problems with NAI and Groupshield (That is if you don't count that whole 4.03,4.04 era). Coming on this list and saying "I hate Groupshield" is like going to Ground Zero in NY and screaming that you are angry with the Taliban. It is terribly exhilarating and will probably get someone to buy you dinner and a drink or two. But, it doesn't accomplish much though. I was only suggesting that he should contact the vendor and pursue it with them and then post the results. If Kishore has as I have inherited a system that is locked with NAI at the hip then perhaps a posting to the list Total Virus Defense list [EMAIL PROTECTED] might be of more help. Now I will go back to striving towards my goal of someday reaching that intersection :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 11:19 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Groupshield for Exchange 2k Run and run correctly are two completely different animals. I don't know that I've ever heard from a source I'd trust of an instance where GS was running correctly.[1] Course the number of people whose opinion I trust and GroupShield users has only the most infinitesimal of intersections. [1] I've heard of it running "normally". [2] [2] As in SNAFU normal. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:49 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Groupshield for Exchange 2k > > > Have you shared this with NAI as well? I have heard that > there are people up and running GSE2K so I think that it must > be able to run correctly. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:46 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: Groupshield for Exchange 2k > > Hi everyone , > > this is more of FYI: If you haven't already been through it , > here is what I got into. I upgrqaded my Exchange environment > to Exchange2k , installed Exchange 2k-SP2 and everything and > than I installed GroupShield to protect from viruses . > > All I knew next is my system won't boot-up again . I tried > Microsoft Article Q319011 (as is wrtiten in this article is > exactly my problem and the way it > happened) , but that doesn't work either. Fortunatly I had my > original server still up and a good backup so I could quickly > restored everything to its previous version but I thought I > would share this experience with you , just in case. > > Kishore > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Groupshield for Exchange 2k
Have you shared this with NAI as well? I have heard that there are people up and running GSE2K so I think that it must be able to run correctly. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:46 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Groupshield for Exchange 2k Hi everyone , this is more of FYI: If you haven't already been through it , here is what I got into. I upgrqaded my Exchange environment to Exchange2k , installed Exchange 2k-SP2 and everything and than I installed GroupShield to protect from viruses . All I knew next is my system won't boot-up again . I tried Microsoft Article Q319011 (as is wrtiten in this article is exactly my problem and the way it happened) , but that doesn't work either. Fortunatly I had my original server still up and a good backup so I could quickly restored everything to its previous version but I thought I would share this experience with you , just in case. Kishore _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook Web Access Error
I can't speak for Exchange 2000 but I ran into the same issue with OWA and Exchange 5.5 and it turned out to be the ability to logon local to the machine right that was needed. I had mine outside the firewall and connecting through VPN and needed to give Domain Users the Logon Local right. Like I said, I can not speak for E2K but that was EXACTLY my problem. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Shane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 12:56 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Outlook Web Access Error When attempting to login to OWA in Exchange 2000, all of my users get this error after entering username and password: "Error. Access is Denied." Administrators can log on just fine but normal users cannot. The Exchange server is Win2K with Exchange 2K and all the latest service packs installed. OWA resides on the Exchange server through the default install. The primary domain controller and global catalog is a separate Win2K server. OWA used to work until recently. Nothing has been modified on the Exchange Server, but recently there were some unintentional security changes on the domain controller and we don't know what they were. The only thing I can find about login denial in OWA says to make sure that users have "log on locally" rights and "access this computer from the network" rights. They have these but still can't login to OWA. Any ideas? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA & SP4 for Exchange
Is your OWA server outside the firewall? If so, does it have connectivity via VPN or something to be able to talk to your inside Exchange box? Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 6:26 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: OWA & SP4 for Exchange Tried upgrading my OWA server with SP4 and received a message that "not all components were updated, try again later".. WHich I know that OWA is only a small component of Exchange. First of all, is this normal... Is there a way I can check my OWA server to verify if any of the SP was suscessful? Ron _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: send as
You could export the GAL out to Excel and set your search criteria there. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: ExchangeSwynkCom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 11:47 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: send as Hello, is there any way to find who is allowed to send as somebody else (except from going through all properties pages manually :-(( ) ? TIA, Jaromir Pavlinec _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: XP on 2000 Network
In IIS admin go to your Web Site container (Default Web Site, or whatever you named it to) and in the panel on the right scroll down to Exchange. Right click on that and choose Properties and then Directory Security. Then under Anonymous Access and Authentication Control choose Edit. In there you will find Basic Authentication. That is where you will set up the Default Domain to be used. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:49 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network That sounds like a good way to go. How do I do that? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network In IIS on the OWA server, you could also set the default domain. Then everyone would just get a Username and a password box. -Original Message- From: HANNA, Keith (TSL Shirley) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: XP on 2000 Network format is: domain\username password -Original Message- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 February 2002 15:28 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: XP on 2000 Network Hello everybody-- We have a native Windows 2000 (SP2) network, with an Exchange 2000 (SP2) server. When they connect to OWA from home, using IE 5.5 or 6 on a Windows 98 or 2000 box, they get three boxes to fill in: Username, Password, Domain. I have two users who have Windows XP computers at home, and when they connect to our OWA site, using IE 6, they only get two boxes to fill in: Username and Password. No Domain. So they can't get in. Is there a remedy or workaround so it will work for them? Thanks, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Robert Moore, MCSE Network Administrator The Agnes Irwin School [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folders
As far as permissions are concerned, I think that you would want to do it in Outlook. If you need to give someone Send As permissions for the folder then you would do that in the admin console. I don't think that you can delete the All Public Folders and I wouldn't remove Favorites. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 8:54 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Public Folders I am using Exchange 5.5 SP4 Under Public folders I have the following folders in this configuration: Public Folders - Favorites - All Public Folders - Internet Newsgroups This was the default setup. I want to add folders under Public Folders and I was to remove the All Public Folders folder and Favorites folder. Can I do this and should I administer public folder permissions from the server or from Outlook? Phil _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Hanging
Of course. Yup, only servers in there!! I fear that this is a classic case of Ed's adage. I have had the same experience as Andy has with the logon screen saver although Martin's Mac and Cheese saver does intrigue me :) Shades of BNL. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:20 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: OWA Hanging Ken, are they in their own room? As in, only servers in that room? -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Hanging Just shoot me -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Hanging Martin, You are preaching to the choir. A state auditor came through one day and told my boss that ALL systems have to be secured with a screen saver and password. Never mind that the system is in a locked secure building that requires ID and a security card to access. Our head admin at the time thought that it was a good idea as well. At least I was able to talk them out of using the 3D pipes eventually. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:08 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: OWA Hanging OK, first things first. You do not use screen savers on servers. They hog CPU time and are inherently buggy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Hanging I just finished fighting this very same thing. I wish that I had some words of wisdom to impart. I had the same thing running here with the exception that my Exchange was at sp4. We had it on a server that also hosted our web page as well. As you said everyday or so it would just hang. I would go to the server and the screen saver was just frozen. I even tried to login and wait for it to take effect thinking that it may just be slow. No dice. I would have to hit the power and bring it back up. It would run again for from 5 minutes to 13 days. Again, no rhyme or reason as far as I could tell. The box sat outside the firewall and communicated via Cisco's VPN client. I have since removed it from that server and brought it up on a new server and had no problems. I have no idea what caused the old one to lock up or why this one is working and the other one did not. The Internet is still being served from the old one and has not locked up as far as I know since I took OWA off of it. I see no change in the event logs from then to now. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:03 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: OWA Hanging I'm currently running OWA (Ex.5.5 - SP3) on an NT4.0 SP6a system. PIII, 866 with 1 gb memory... On multiple occasions (mostly weekends) the system will hang and our clients are unable to connect to to the system to get their mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://ww
RE: OWA Hanging
Martin, You are preaching to the choir. A state auditor came through one day and told my boss that ALL systems have to be secured with a screen saver and password. Never mind that the system is in a locked secure building that requires ID and a security card to access. Our head admin at the time thought that it was a good idea as well. At least I was able to talk them out of using the 3D pipes eventually. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 7:08 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: OWA Hanging OK, first things first. You do not use screen savers on servers. They hog CPU time and are inherently buggy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: OWA Hanging I just finished fighting this very same thing. I wish that I had some words of wisdom to impart. I had the same thing running here with the exception that my Exchange was at sp4. We had it on a server that also hosted our web page as well. As you said everyday or so it would just hang. I would go to the server and the screen saver was just frozen. I even tried to login and wait for it to take effect thinking that it may just be slow. No dice. I would have to hit the power and bring it back up. It would run again for from 5 minutes to 13 days. Again, no rhyme or reason as far as I could tell. The box sat outside the firewall and communicated via Cisco's VPN client. I have since removed it from that server and brought it up on a new server and had no problems. I have no idea what caused the old one to lock up or why this one is working and the other one did not. The Internet is still being served from the old one and has not locked up as far as I know since I took OWA off of it. I see no change in the event logs from then to now. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:03 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: OWA Hanging I'm currently running OWA (Ex.5.5 - SP3) on an NT4.0 SP6a system. PIII, 866 with 1 gb memory... On multiple occasions (mostly weekends) the system will hang and our clients are unable to connect to to the system to get their mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: OWA Hanging
I just finished fighting this very same thing. I wish that I had some words of wisdom to impart. I had the same thing running here with the exception that my Exchange was at sp4. We had it on a server that also hosted our web page as well. As you said everyday or so it would just hang. I would go to the server and the screen saver was just frozen. I even tried to login and wait for it to take effect thinking that it may just be slow. No dice. I would have to hit the power and bring it back up. It would run again for from 5 minutes to 13 days. Again, no rhyme or reason as far as I could tell. The box sat outside the firewall and communicated via Cisco's VPN client. I have since removed it from that server and brought it up on a new server and had no problems. I have no idea what caused the old one to lock up or why this one is working and the other one did not. The Internet is still being served from the old one and has not locked up as far as I know since I took OWA off of it. I see no change in the event logs from then to now. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Pennell, Ronald B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:03 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: OWA Hanging I'm currently running OWA (Ex.5.5 - SP3) on an NT4.0 SP6a system. PIII, 866 with 1 gb memory... On multiple occasions (mostly weekends) the system will hang and our clients are unable to connect to to the system to get their mail. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folders & Mailing Lists
What I do since I am the one that is configuring and subscribing the folders to the lists is to use one central SMTP address and then move messages as they come in to the appropriate folder. That way I am only maintaining one address. It makes it a whole lot easier to change info or to unsubscribe since most lists want something from the original address to make the change. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Yanek Korff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:21 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Public Folders & Mailing Lists I have had little success searching the archives -- too little comes up (using the link at the bottom of the E-Mail). I don't see anything relevant in the faq. I guess it's the setup I'm interested in. As I create folders, names are assigned to them. What's the reccommended way to subscribe to these mailing lists? Set my smtp address to the name of the mailing list for subscription and subsequently create the folder to catch future E-Mails? -Yanek. > -Original Message- > From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:38 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Public Folders & Mailing Lists > > > Yay!!! You rock. This is the Best Way to manage this. My > comments are > below inline. > > -Original Message- > From: Yanek Korff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:26 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Public Folders & Mailing Lists > > > > As with many companies, we have a number of users who all subscribe to > similar mailing lists. I'd like to bring some of these lists > under one > umbrella by subscribing public folders to the lists instead of the > individual users. This is a reccomended strategy, correct? I seem to > remember reading about it on this list a while back. Several > questions, > however: > > 1. Where can I get more information about setting this up? > Archives, FAQ > 2. If the folders are subscribed, do the users need to > subscribe anyway to > post to those lists? > Yes. The folder collects the mail; people post as > themselves. The > PF subs with some sort of "get the mail" option; the people sub as "no > mail". > 3. Is there no way to have a (#) printed next to public > folders for new > messages? > But of course. Right click the PF, choose Add to > Outlook bar. Set > your view to Unread messages. The number in parens is the number of > messages you personally have not read. Your view is your view. > 4. What are the real benefits to this approach? > You already know. > 5. Anything else I should know? > I set mine to have an age limit of about 6 months so > they never get > out of hand. If I see something go by that I want, I put it > in my Exchange > (or whatever) PST for posterity. > > -Yanek. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folders & Mailing Lists
The only thing that I would add is that you do not even have to set your view to only UNREAD. I have mine set to BY CONVERSATION and then I can follow by "Thread". Either way by moving it to your Outlook bar, as Lori stated, you will get a number of messages that you personally have not read. It does not decrement to PF for everyone else. Second, for lists such as this one that have a HIGH volume, I set the PF to age out at 30 days. Through use of a Folder Assistant rule I also have all messages go to a PF underneath of it called Archives which I will keep for whatever amount of time you wish. Server space will dictate what that time limit will be. This allows searches for current discussions to complete fairly fast. If you need to do a more extensive search then you would do it on the Archive folder. Finally, by having your users only subscribed to post and not receive mail, you should avoid Out of Office messages being sent out in case your are forced to allow OOO to the Internet. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:40 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Public Folders & Mailing Lists Yay!!! You rock. This is the Best Way to manage this. My comments are below inline. -Original Message- From: Yanek Korff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Public Folders & Mailing Lists As with many companies, we have a number of users who all subscribe to similar mailing lists. I'd like to bring some of these lists under one umbrella by subscribing public folders to the lists instead of the individual users. This is a reccomended strategy, correct? I seem to remember reading about it on this list a while back. Several questions, however: 1. Where can I get more information about setting this up? Archives, FAQ 2. If the folders are subscribed, do the users need to subscribe anyway to post to those lists? Yes. The folder collects the mail; people post as themselves. The PF subs with some sort of "get the mail" option; the people sub as "no mail". 3. Is there no way to have a (#) printed next to public folders for new messages? But of course. Right click the PF, choose Add to Outlook bar. Set your view to Unread messages. The number in parens is the number of messages you personally have not read. Your view is your view. 4. What are the real benefits to this approach? You already know. 5. Anything else I should know? I set mine to have an age limit of about 6 months so they never get out of hand. If I see something go by that I want, I put it in my Exchange (or whatever) PST for posterity. -Yanek. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose
Sounds like Trend is able to keep up with NAI ;) We have been using WebShield SMTP and it has not been fooled. We block everything executable under the sun since the creation of the sun. We are blocking at a rate of 2-3 a minute; first with content filtering and lately with the Extra.dat file that they supplied for both versions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:33 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: Re: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Trend Scanmail 6.0 nailed it, blocking .com's and it was not fooled, stped it as early as 22:00 on the 27th. - Original Message - From: "Martin Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:22 AM Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > Also another classic example of what a POS Mcafee is. They are saying they > will release a DAT for it on the 30th > > -Original Message- > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:21 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > > > Most of the systems I am monitoring are blocking it as a VBS script. > > Nate Couch > EDS Messaging > > -Original Message- > From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > > > trend has just launched pattern 212 > > -Original Message- > From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 28 January, 2002 3:20 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > > > Somehow this one slipped past our .com filter on our linux firewall. NAV for > exchange caught it by the .COM extension, and norton had just liveupdated us > an hour earlier with the new definitions that would have caught it if it > wasn't a blocked extension. I think the syntax of the attachment code is > probably not RFC compliant. > > Tom > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > > > Fortunately we're all blocking *.com right? The *.com viruses are going to > take forever to combat from a social engineering standpoint. It's probably > worth investing some time in user education on .com files because I think > this is going to be a new favorite virus writing style for the next few > months. > > Chris Scharff > The Mail Resource Center > http://www.mail-resources.com > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone > To: Exchange Discussions > Sent: 1/28/2002 7:57 AM > Subject: FW: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > > > > -Original Message- > From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose > > > Be aware that this morning you will likely find a copy of this new mass > mailer in your mail systems. This is a pure social engineering attack, it > contains an attachment named as a URL with a .com extension. Since .com is > also an application, it will be run as such if its double-clicked on. Check > with your AV company for updates and/or filtering criteria. If you can, be > sure you have attachment filtering enabled at your mail gateway. Outlook > Email Security Update, and Outlook 2002, both catch this attachment and > prevent it from being available for the user to click on. > > Cheers, > Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesear
RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose
You are right. Having the words "Bottom" and "Removal Instructions" in the same sentence does conjure up thoughts best left alone. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:23 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose removal instructions... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99332.htm at the bottom under Removal Instructions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:20 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Where is it? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Close, but not quite. "POS McAfee" has had a signature via an EXTRA.DAT for it since Sunday night. What they are saying is that it will not be incorporated into the normal DAT signature (which comes out on Wednesdays) until it has been fully tested. Regardless of whether they have it incorporated or not, we are not letting executables such as .exe, com, bat, etc. are we? First do no harm. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:25 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Also another classic example of what a POS Mcafee is. They are saying they will release a DAT for it on the 30th -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Most of the systems I am monitoring are blocking it as a VBS script. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -Original Message- From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose trend has just launched pattern 212 -Original Message- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 January, 2002 3:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Somehow this one slipped past our .com filter on our linux firewall. NAV for exchange caught it by the .COM extension, and norton had just liveupdated us an hour earlier with the new definitions that would have caught it if it wasn't a blocked extension. I think the syntax of the attachment code is probably not RFC compliant. Tom -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Fortunately we're all blocking *.com right? The *.com viruses are going to take forever to combat from a social engineering standpoint. It's probably worth investing some time in user education on .com files because I think this is going to be a new favorite virus writing style for the next few months. Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.mail-resources.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/28/2002 7:57 AM Subject: FW: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Be aware that this morning you will likely find a copy of this new mass mailer in your mail systems. This is a pure social engineering attack, it contains an attachment named as a URL with a .com extension. Since .com is also an application, it will be run as such if its double-clicked on. Check with your AV company for updates and/or filtering criteria. If you can, be sure you have attachment filtering enabled at your mail gateway. Outlook Email Security Update, and Outlook 2002, both catch this attachment and prevent it from being available for the user to click on. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resou
RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose
http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99332.htm at the bottom under Removal Instructions. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:20 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Where is it? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Close, but not quite. "POS McAfee" has had a signature via an EXTRA.DAT for it since Sunday night. What they are saying is that it will not be incorporated into the normal DAT signature (which comes out on Wednesdays) until it has been fully tested. Regardless of whether they have it incorporated or not, we are not letting executables such as .exe, com, bat, etc. are we? First do no harm. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:25 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Also another classic example of what a POS Mcafee is. They are saying they will release a DAT for it on the 30th -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Most of the systems I am monitoring are blocking it as a VBS script. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -Original Message- From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose trend has just launched pattern 212 -Original Message- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 January, 2002 3:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Somehow this one slipped past our .com filter on our linux firewall. NAV for exchange caught it by the .COM extension, and norton had just liveupdated us an hour earlier with the new definitions that would have caught it if it wasn't a blocked extension. I think the syntax of the attachment code is probably not RFC compliant. Tom -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Fortunately we're all blocking *.com right? The *.com viruses are going to take forever to combat from a social engineering standpoint. It's probably worth investing some time in user education on .com files because I think this is going to be a new favorite virus writing style for the next few months. Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.mail-resources.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/28/2002 7:57 AM Subject: FW: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Be aware that this morning you will likely find a copy of this new mass mailer in your mail systems. This is a pure social engineering attack, it contains an attachment named as a URL with a .com extension. Since .com is also an application, it will be run as such if its double-clicked on. Check with your AV company for updates and/or filtering criteria. If you can, be sure you have attachment filtering enabled at your mail gateway. Outlook Email Security Update, and Outlook 2002, both catch this attachment and prevent it from being available for the user to click on. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose
Close, but not quite. "POS McAfee" has had a signature via an EXTRA.DAT for it since Sunday night. What they are saying is that it will not be incorporated into the normal DAT signature (which comes out on Wednesdays) until it has been fully tested. Regardless of whether they have it incorporated or not, we are not letting executables such as .exe, com, bat, etc. are we? First do no harm. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:25 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Also another classic example of what a POS Mcafee is. They are saying they will release a DAT for it on the 30th -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 7:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Most of the systems I am monitoring are blocking it as a VBS script. Nate Couch EDS Messaging -Original Message- From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 8:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose trend has just launched pattern 212 -Original Message- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 28 January, 2002 3:20 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Somehow this one slipped past our .com filter on our linux firewall. NAV for exchange caught it by the .COM extension, and norton had just liveupdated us an hour earlier with the new definitions that would have caught it if it wasn't a blocked extension. I think the syntax of the attachment code is probably not RFC compliant. Tom -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Fortunately we're all blocking *.com right? The *.com viruses are going to take forever to combat from a social engineering standpoint. It's probably worth investing some time in user education on .com files because I think this is going to be a new favorite virus writing style for the next few months. Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.mail-resources.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 1/28/2002 7:57 AM Subject: FW: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose -Original Message- From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Alert: W32/Myparty-mm on the loose Be aware that this morning you will likely find a copy of this new mass mailer in your mail systems. This is a pure social engineering attack, it contains an attachment named as a URL with a .com extension. Since .com is also an application, it will be run as such if its double-clicked on. Check with your AV company for updates and/or filtering criteria. If you can, be sure you have attachment filtering enabled at your mail gateway. Outlook Email Security Update, and Outlook 2002, both catch this attachment and prevent it from being available for the user to click on. Cheers, Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Antivirus Suite recommendations
All valid complaints. I may not be having the problems that most are having since we use their SMTP gateway product that is part of the Active Virus Defense suite called WebShield SMTP. It has allowed us to content filter and block at the gateway before it ever gets to Groupshield. I just got off of the phone with our account rep at NAI and she was trying to get us to go to their web appliance called e500. It basically is a hardware version of the Websheild SMTP product with a few bells and whistles. The benefits that it purports to have over the software version we hope to be able to handle at the firewall level. We did not see the tripling that others have seen. Had we have seen it we too would have been on Trend Micro "like a donkey on a waffle". It is just hard to justify going to something that they see as never having let them down. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 11:07 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Antivirus Suite recommendations Don't get me wrong. I had made my peace with Groupshield's eccentricities, and probably would have stuck with it if they had not tried tripling the amount we were paying at the exact same time as I was trying (in vain) for months to get a fix from NAI tech support that would allow Groupshield to successfully clean the Magistr virus. But don't get me started... -Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 14:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Antivirus Suite recommendations This "jihad" seems to come around pretty regularly :). As I am the only one to not have experienced the problems that everyone else reports I will keep my comments short. We have used TVD (Total Virus Defense Suite) for several years with not one single problem that could be attributed back to NAI. Oh sure there was that one time with Groupshield when they went to the new engine :( But, other than that we have had 100% satisfaction with them. I have not had the pleasure of using Trend's software so I can not comment on that. I am sure though that it has to be far superior to everything else based on everyone's high recommendations. On the subject of pricing for your systems, that does seem awfully high. We just currently moved up to their AVD suite that contains ePolicy Orchestrator to allow for remote management of all systems and the quote came back at $23.80 per client and $5.25 for "Connect" Phone Support and Maintenance. That was for 2001 clients for 2 years. I believe that it was quoted at a 32% discount. It appears that you should be able to get the same discounts as we did since you are local government. This does sound like a good time to make the switch to Trend with what NAI is quoting you. Like I said, we have done well with it so I can not make a good enough case for switching. I guess that it wasn't that short. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:22 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Antivirus Suite recommendations Hello! Upon attempting to renew our license with NAI for our TVD suite, I've found that the cost of renewal is significantly greater ($8500 +) than what we originally purchased the suite for (around $3000). Of course, we are going from 101 nodes to 175 nodes, but the jump in cost is enormous. Therefore, I am looking for potential alternatives. I know that there are other vendors that are noted as being worth looking into (Trend, AntiGen, etc.). Any suggestions then, especially in light of cost? I'd really like to find something that might come in a whole lot closer to our original cost for TVD, plus the extra nodes we need (under 200). It really is important that the suite be able to handle integrating well with Exchange 5.5. Especially when it comes to attachment blocking. Thanks much! Matt Hoffman _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] __
RE: Antivirus Suite recommendations
This "jihad" seems to come around pretty regularly :). As I am the only one to not have experienced the problems that everyone else reports I will keep my comments short. We have used TVD (Total Virus Defense Suite) for several years with not one single problem that could be attributed back to NAI. Oh sure there was that one time with Groupshield when they went to the new engine :( But, other than that we have had 100% satisfaction with them. I have not had the pleasure of using Trend's software so I can not comment on that. I am sure though that it has to be far superior to everything else based on everyone's high recommendations. On the subject of pricing for your systems, that does seem awfully high. We just currently moved up to their AVD suite that contains ePolicy Orchestrator to allow for remote management of all systems and the quote came back at $23.80 per client and $5.25 for "Connect" Phone Support and Maintenance. That was for 2001 clients for 2 years. I believe that it was quoted at a 32% discount. It appears that you should be able to get the same discounts as we did since you are local government. This does sound like a good time to make the switch to Trend with what NAI is quoting you. Like I said, we have done well with it so I can not make a good enough case for switching. I guess that it wasn't that short. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 11:22 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Antivirus Suite recommendations Hello! Upon attempting to renew our license with NAI for our TVD suite, I've found that the cost of renewal is significantly greater ($8500 +) than what we originally purchased the suite for (around $3000). Of course, we are going from 101 nodes to 175 nodes, but the jump in cost is enormous. Therefore, I am looking for potential alternatives. I know that there are other vendors that are noted as being worth looking into (Trend, AntiGen, etc.). Any suggestions then, especially in light of cost? I'd really like to find something that might come in a whole lot closer to our original cost for TVD, plus the extra nodes we need (under 200). It really is important that the suite be able to handle integrating well with Exchange 5.5. Especially when it comes to attachment blocking. Thanks much! Matt Hoffman _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus
SW Washington. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:32 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus Sounds like a lot of fun and I would really like to meet the group of gurus you associate with in Seattle!! Unfortunately for me, I already agreed to take off work early and take a non-techie friend of mine to see the Lord of the Rings. Maybe next time? Dang...would have been nice to meet Don before he left though. Guess I'll have a chance to meet him at MEC this year though. Who else is in the Washington State/Idaho/Oregon/Lower Cananda area? Jim -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus A bunch of us are headed out tonight to Pacific Crest Brew Pub, to say good Bye to Don Ely. He is leavening the PNW for the other coast next week. Come on up. You have about 4 hours to make it. Right at the North end of Boeing field. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus Dr. Dogg! Yer in Seattle? Cool! If you ever need someone to go to a Sonics/Mariners/Seachickens game with ya, just let me know...I'm in the Tri-Cities...Richland to be specific. ;0) Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus That's the AB I know.. Way to go, High Five man. I was just given 2 tickets, BOX seats for tonight's Sonics game. Guess where I will be at 7:00 Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus Screw em! I just did it -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus You sure? It is on my server? Wait I remember this, We had this conversation, didn't we AB? Your owners would not let you block that extension. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus Well isn't that a nice onecrap! -Original Message- From: Corney, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Has anybody been hit with the S.Gigger.A@mm Virus The virus is not in the wild yet ,The extension is htm , which is not on Martins blocking list. http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=JS_GIGGER .A _ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions
And I'll bet that it is not because you are a Scot. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x7665 -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:06 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions I'm not wearing pants. -Original Message- From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions You are absolutely right. From now on, no more jokes. For the rest of my career, I promise to become a serious and prudish Exchange citizen. I also vow not to go postal from the lack of humor while working in the wee hours of the morning. Thank you for setting me straight. Let's hope others follow. Together we can make this list the most solemn Exchange List in the world. Continued success. Jennifer Baker -Original Message- From: Mike Lagase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 10:11 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions Man, try to help people out and you get slammed. I thought this was supposed to be an Exchange question and answer group and not a group that has to knock down or create a joke about everything that is being thrown out here. These are real world scenarios and you obviously have way too much time on your hands to reply to this. Mike - Original Message - From: "Jennifer Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:35 AM Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > What does this have to do with the Honeymooners? > > -Original Message- > From: Mike Lagase [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:25 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > What you need to do is add the Total Ops column to your Exchange admin > program. This will show you what mailbox is doing the most amount of > operations on your exchange server. It is most likely a rule that is > forwarding to the internet so you will need to login to that mailbox and > see what is going on. > > Mike > > -Original Message- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:04 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > Bang! Zoom! > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > Tech Consultant > Compaq Computer > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jennifer Baker > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:13 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > One of these days, Alice. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:15 PM > To: Baker, Jennifer > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > Is that an auotresponse? > > -Original Message- > From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > > I was being sarcastic. > > > -Original Message- > From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > I know but it is a potential cause of this problem > > > > > > PROFITLAB > Network Engineer > PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:52 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > Nobody on this list does that. If they do, I hope they don't admit it. > > -Original Message- > From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:42 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: PRIV IS rapidly growing out of proportions > > > Also Mailbox Level Backups > > > > > > PROFITLAB > Network Engineer > PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -Original Message- > From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:47 PM >
RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5
That's four more than I usually give. :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:06 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 ::High Five:: -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 We ain't huggin! ;o) How about a secret handshake or something? D "Incompetence: When you Earnestly Believe you can compensate for a lack of skill by doubling your efforts, there's no end to what you can't do." - - http://www.despair.com -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Id give you a big hug if it wouldn't be all awkward, then would have to punch each other to maintain a manly appearance. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Sorry bud, but you're likely to make Martin mad since it's his list. Though everyone's should look about the same with varying differences here and there. D "Saving the world from Brick Level Backups and PST's" - Ed Crowley -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I am using that, and got file blocking really tricked out with Don Ely's list of attachments to block! Thanks for everyone's input. I will try to talk then into keeping scanmail, and using NAV for servers and clients as a compromise. If they don't go for it, I will hope for a trouble free system like Tom and James have(but will keep Scanmail handy just incase) Thanks! Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Using AVAPI and File Blocking? If not, you should be. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I have version 3.52 with 5.5 sp4 on a Win2k Advanced server SP2. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:06 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Ron, what version of Scanmail are you running and what SP is your Exch server on? -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 I feel the same way. I really researched for the best solution back then, and scanmail it has proven to be great...no crashed servers, no bluescreens etc. We did have a few outbreaks, but that was I think due to scanmail being on a P-133 and not being able to keep up with the influx. IF I can build a strong enough case against NAV for scanning...and just do the server/client side solution only, that would be great. I almost want to install it, and have things crash for them not asking me about this...but IM the one that has to recover the thing! :( Ron -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Going from Scanmail to NAV is like going from Prime Rib to ground round Your company will be very sorry it made this move. Since you already have Scanmail, there is no reason to dump it. I would SERIOUSLY put my foot down on this and fight it all the way to the top. -Original Message- From: Ron Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: NAV for Exchange 5.5 Hi Folks, I just found out we are going with The Norton Solution for our company anti-virus protection. This is fine for server and client, but I was also told we would be using NAV's solution for Exchange. (Groupware I think). Since I was not involved in this decision, but was the sole decision maker when I chose Scanmail...im not too happy. But...I turn to y'all again, as I did a few years ago for info on the best AV solution. This time I'm asking what kind of problems will I see with this new NAV scan engine that was chosen for MY Email servers? Is the NAV a solid, non-flaky product for Exchange? I couldn't really find anything major from the net..but y'all would know best. Thanks! Ron __
RE: URL as a malicius code.
Which link? Kelly's or the one that the virus sends out :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: David Florea [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:27 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: URL as a malicius code. Can't get that link to work... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: URL as a malicius code. Bad... very bad... http://www.ntbugtraq.com/default.asp?pid=36&sid=1&A2=ind0112&L=ntbugtraq&F=P &S &P=3038 ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com "One man's ceiling is another man's floor" |+---> || "Romero, Eric" | || <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 12/18/2001 12:29 PM | || Please respond to| || "Exchange Discussions" | || | |+---> >--- ---| | | | To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | cc: | | Subject: URL as a malicius code. | >--- ---| Hi all Are you receiving emails with subjects www.celebxtr.cgb.net that creates url links in the desktop and start to send massive messages? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Virus
Thanks. It just seemed funny that someone else would report it. I just kind of blew it off as the user must have installed some Acrobat product and did not remember it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:06 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: New Virus No one here has seen anything on it, but we are going to look further. ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com "One man's ceiling is another man's floor" |+---> || [EMAIL PROTECTED]| || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 12/07/2001 02:12 PM | || Please respond to| || "Exchange Discussions" | || | |+---> >--- | | | | To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: New Virus | >--- | Funny you should bring that up. I just had someone come up to me yesterday and ask me where FE came from and why he had so many icons for it on his toolbar. Let me know if you find out anything further. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:11 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: New Virus Has anyone seen this? I have searched all over and don't know of it is a virus or not. If you need to adjust color balance of your image or make it sharper you will have to use some image editing software. In that case FotoExplorer is still a perfect tool that allows you to select the images you want and drag them from your camera into the image editor. \par It is not a tool to print fancy layouts, greeting cards, calendars, etc. If that is your goal use FotoExplorer in combination with some specialized printing software. Along with this message it sent 2 attachments; FotoExplorer.exe and Search.gif. I am using Antigen and removing all *.exe, but was curious if this is a virus. I sent an email back to the person that sent it and they didn't know anything about it and stated they never sent it. Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Virus
Funny you should bring that up. I just had someone come up to me yesterday and ask me where FE came from and why he had so many icons for it on his toolbar. Let me know if you find out anything further. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:11 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: New Virus Has anyone seen this? I have searched all over and don't know of it is a virus or not. If you need to adjust color balance of your image or make it sharper you will have to use some image editing software. In that case FotoExplorer is still a perfect tool that allows you to select the images you want and drag them from your camera into the image editor. \par It is not a tool to print fancy layouts, greeting cards, calendars, etc. If that is your goal use FotoExplorer in combination with some specialized printing software. Along with this message it sent 2 attachments; FotoExplorer.exe and Search.gif. I am using Antigen and removing all *.exe, but was curious if this is a virus. I sent an email back to the person that sent it and they didn't know anything about it and stated they never sent it. Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange / McAfee / ePolicy Orchestrator Question
Robert, I have found Outbreak Manager to be flaky at best. Maybe I am not configuring it correctly. I have it set to trigger on 30 identical attachments detected within 5 minutes. It is to react automatically by blocking email with specific attachment name and then escalate to update DAT. The problem that I have is that it seems to start blocking the attachments for awhile. Then it will "unwind" the rule and release them and start letting them through again. I want it to stop them all and let me decide to start letting them in again. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the way that it works. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Grupe, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:59 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Exchange / McAfee / ePolicy Orchestrator Question See responses below... Robert Grupe, PE [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Fred W. Macondray Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 05 December, 2001 18:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject:Exchange / McAfee / ePolicy Orchestrator Question Hi All, Sorry this is slightly off topic, but NAI is obviously swamped by Goner and I just hung up after 30 minutes on hold as I have much to do around here. Questions: 1) How can I distribute the Extra.DAT files from McAfee that cover the Goner virus to NetShield and groupshield with ePO? Currently the released versions of GroupShield for Exchange only have reporting capabilities with ePO, but configuration & policy support will be included in the next releases. 2) Is necessary to distribute the EXTRA.DAT file with or do the DAT files with the same date contain the signature of Goner too? As answered on the list, the 4174 dats contained the signature and can be rollout via Superdat (this will update all McAfee products running on the machine) or through the AutoUpdate within the products. 3) Outbreak manager... what's the typical configuration? What do you use (assuming you use GroupShield). There is no typical configuration since the creation of rules depend on the throughput of the server, number of users etc. For example a rule would be x number of identical attachments in y time - x needs to be large enough that a innocent file sent to a number of users does not trigger but Goner would with y being short enough to be effective. Thanks in Advance, Fred Fred Macondray Systems Administrator Virtual Purchase Card, Inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.virtualpurchasecard.com - "Guaranteed B2B Purchases" _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Virus
Thanks. It just seemed funny that someone else would report it. I just kind of blew it off as the user must have installed some Acrobat product and did not remember it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 12:06 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: New Virus No one here has seen anything on it, but we are going to look further. ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com "One man's ceiling is another man's floor" |+---> || [EMAIL PROTECTED]| || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 12/07/2001 02:12 PM | || Please respond to| || "Exchange Discussions" | || | |+---> >--- | | | | To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: New Virus | >--- | Funny you should bring that up. I just had someone come up to me yesterday and ask me where FE came from and why he had so many icons for it on his toolbar. Let me know if you find out anything further. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:11 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: New Virus Has anyone seen this? I have searched all over and don't know of it is a virus or not. If you need to adjust color balance of your image or make it sharper you will have to use some image editing software. In that case FotoExplorer is still a perfect tool that allows you to select the images you want and drag them from your camera into the image editor. \par It is not a tool to print fancy layouts, greeting cards, calendars, etc. If that is your goal use FotoExplorer in combination with some specialized printing software. Along with this message it sent 2 attachments; FotoExplorer.exe and Search.gif. I am using Antigen and removing all *.exe, but was curious if this is a virus. I sent an email back to the person that sent it and they didn't know anything about it and stated they never sent it. Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Virus
Funny you should bring that up. I just had someone come up to me yesterday and ask me where FE came from and why he had so many icons for it on his toolbar. Let me know if you find out anything further. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 11:11 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: New Virus Has anyone seen this? I have searched all over and don't know of it is a virus or not. If you need to adjust color balance of your image or make it sharper you will have to use some image editing software. In that case FotoExplorer is still a perfect tool that allows you to select the images you want and drag them from your camera into the image editor. \par It is not a tool to print fancy layouts, greeting cards, calendars, etc. If that is your goal use FotoExplorer in combination with some specialized printing software. Along with this message it sent 2 attachments; FotoExplorer.exe and Search.gif. I am using Antigen and removing all *.exe, but was curious if this is a virus. I sent an email back to the person that sent it and they didn't know anything about it and stated they never sent it. Saul _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange / McAfee / ePolicy Orchestrator Question
Robert, I have found Outbreak Manager to be flaky at best. Maybe I am not configuring it correctly. I have it set to trigger on 30 identical attachments detected within 5 minutes. It is to react automatically by blocking email with specific attachment name and then escalate to update DAT. The problem that I have is that it seems to start blocking the attachments for awhile. Then it will "unwind" the rule and release them and start letting them through again. I want it to stop them all and let me decide to start letting them in again. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the way that it works. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Grupe, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:59 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Exchange / McAfee / ePolicy Orchestrator Question See responses below... Robert Grupe, PE [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Fred W. Macondray Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 05 December, 2001 18:45 To: Exchange Discussions Subject:Exchange / McAfee / ePolicy Orchestrator Question Hi All, Sorry this is slightly off topic, but NAI is obviously swamped by Goner and I just hung up after 30 minutes on hold as I have much to do around here. Questions: 1) How can I distribute the Extra.DAT files from McAfee that cover the Goner virus to NetShield and groupshield with ePO? Currently the released versions of GroupShield for Exchange only have reporting capabilities with ePO, but configuration & policy support will be included in the next releases. 2) Is necessary to distribute the EXTRA.DAT file with or do the DAT files with the same date contain the signature of Goner too? As answered on the list, the 4174 dats contained the signature and can be rollout via Superdat (this will update all McAfee products running on the machine) or through the AutoUpdate within the products. 3) Outbreak manager... what's the typical configuration? What do you use (assuming you use GroupShield). There is no typical configuration since the creation of rules depend on the throughput of the server, number of users etc. For example a rule would be x number of identical attachments in y time - x needs to be large enough that a innocent file sent to a number of users does not trigger but Goner would with y being short enough to be effective. Thanks in Advance, Fred Fred Macondray Systems Administrator Virtual Purchase Card, Inc. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.virtualpurchasecard.com - "Guaranteed B2B Purchases" _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Do your content blockers stop attachment when they are TNEF e ncod ed?
NAI's Webshield 4.5 has worked against TNEF since engine 4150. I am sure that if they support it that the other vendors do as well. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 6:53 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Do your content blockers stop attachment when they are TNEF encod ed? When an attachment is encoded with TNEF, the filename is embedded in the encoded part. We have a filetype filter on our firewall machine, but it cannot tell what is in a TNEF encoded attachment. Once the file gets to our exchange server, NAV can block by extension. Since we are running in MAPI mode, I don't trust this to always catch these. Do any of the content filtering products work with TNEF files? Tom _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: New Groupshield install.
Yeah, you need to pull down the Message Body Scanner and the Names Resolver. I am probably one of the lists biggest backers of the NAI/McAfee (since that is what was in use when I got here) suite when the AV jihads come through every so often. That being said, Chris Scharff is absolutely correct when he said in a previous posting " Using the AVAPI? This is an inherent limitation of the API." And it SUCKS I am told by NAI that it is fixed in GSE2K. And, yes, it only works against the quarantine database to my knowledge. It has been much more of an art than a science. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Akerlund, Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 1:09 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: New Groupshield install. You need to download and setup the Name Resolver utility that is a part of this. I believe this only works if you are quarantining to the Database option and not a folder. -Original Message- From: Bean, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:57 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: New Groupshield install. We just installed McAfee GroupShield 4.5SP1 on our Exchange 5.5 server. When we receive an attachment that had a virus it is deleted and we get a notification message. However when we look at it the only information present is the ticket number and the virus type. The intended recipient, sender, and subject fields are all listed as unknown. Is this normal behavior? Or is there some patches that we don't know about? It seems to me to be kind of silly not to let the admin know who the infected message was going to. Details: NT 4.0 SP6a Exchange 5.5 SP 4 GroupShield 4.5 SP1 Thank for any help. -Rick B Rick Bean [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://grove.ufl.edu/~rickb Network Administrator: UF Dept. of Ob/Gyn _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook Rule
Permanent delete may not work but Delete does. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 1:55 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook Rule I tried doing it that way. But you cannot mix a server rule with a client rule. I was hoping that would be the cure. But n. Thanks for the help. __ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Outlook Rule What about checking "Forward to person or distribution list" AND "Permanently Delete it"? That should accomplish what you want to do without leaving a copy for you to view. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:38 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook Rule The client is Outlook 2K. __ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook Rule All, Is there an Outlook rule that will allow me to setup a rule that when a certain user sends me an email that I can forward it to someone without me viewing this email? I checked the forward to rule..but the email still shows up in the mailbox. Also, I checked the redirect rule that does the same thing. The redirect seems to be logically what I want it to do, but it doesn't. Does anyone know of a way I can get this rule to function? Thanks for all the help, __ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook Rule
What about checking "Forward to person or distribution list" AND "Permanently Delete it"? That should accomplish what you want to do without leaving a copy for you to view. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:38 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook Rule The client is Outlook 2K. __ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bowles, John L. Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Outlook Rule All, Is there an Outlook rule that will allow me to setup a rule that when a certain user sends me an email that I can forward it to someone without me viewing this email? I checked the forward to rule..but the email still shows up in the mailbox. Also, I checked the redirect rule that does the same thing. The redirect seems to be logically what I want it to do, but it doesn't. Does anyone know of a way I can get this rule to function? Thanks for all the help, __ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support & Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Conference Rooms and such...
I didn't know that. I thought that you had to invite it as a resource to get
it to work. I guess I never tried to do it any other way :)
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x7665
-Original Message-
From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:22 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Ah - there's an advantage to the script. Using the Outlook UI method you
have to address the resource as a "Resource". If you do it as an "Attendee"
(optional or required) it won't auto accept the request.
Aloha,
-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 9:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
>
>
> Mr. Strong's script has no such limitation on how you address
> the resources. Optional, required, resource, whatever - it
> all works a treat.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
>
>
> Yep... that the Q article that I had seen this past weekend.
>
> Thanks a bunch for everyone's help, I really appreciate it.
>
> I still have a couple of questions, so I hope I'm not
> drumming on a subject that's been talked to death here.
>
> I've gone ahead and set the default permissions to None, as
> suggested. Of course with that set as such, when selecting
> "Attendees and Resources" while creating a meeting request,
> they cannot drop a conference room in to the resource. When
> they try a dialog box appears stating they do not have the
> proper permissions to do so and that they must use the
> "Required" or "Optional" boxes.
>
> The problem here though is that using anything other then the
> "Resource" box for the conference room will not fire the
> auto-accept response. It will just sit there in the
> conference room's inbox.
>
> My question is... is it a safe assumption that to get this
> to work with only "Required" or "Optional" that I would need
> Robert Strong's AutoAccept script form ExchangeCode? i.e. --
> I cannot use the resource booking script from Outlook2000.
>
> Thanks again for your time.
>
> -KHD
>
> --
> Kevin H. Devin
> IT Systems Administrator
> Alerton Technologies, Inc.
> Redmond, WA
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sargent, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
>
>
> See also Q246866
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 7:13 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
>
>
> Yes, Lori Hunter must have the day off or she would be right
> in here :)
>
> {Playing the part of Lori Hunter in tonight's performance
> will be Ken Powell}
>
> In short, DON'T ALLOW DIRECT BOOKING IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE
> THE AUTOACCEPT SCRIPT Allow ONLY Reviewer access if they
> need to get into the calendar. If they complain, tell them
> that they can not have it both ways and to stop whining.
>
> {How did I do Lori?}
>
> I just got finished fighting this last week. This has been
> discussed at quite some length in the last couple of weeks. A
> search on "auto accept" should lead you to it.
>
> The following TechNet articles will show you what I needed to
> do to correct it. Q281935 and Q289606.
>
> Ken Powell
> Systems Administrator
> Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
> Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
> Fax: (360) 759-6001
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:38 PM
> To: Exchange 5.5 List
> Subject: Conference Rooms and such...
>
> This past weekend I stumbled across a piece of information
> that stated that users should not be allowed to view a
> resources calendar by doing a "File / Open / Other User's
> Folder" as it could break the auto-acceptance and cause
> corruption. This bit of
RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
Great!!! I was beginning to think that it was just me, again. Now, in this
situation it appears to be breaking all of Lori's rules. It would appear
that you can run this AND allow direct bookings. Is that correct? Not that I
want to do it, I just don't see how you would be able to stop it.
Another thing that I notice that is strange is that I will book the resource
successfully and then later deleted the appointment and allow it to update
recipients (the resource). It even tells me that it was successfully
canceled. The trouble is that when I go into the resource it still shows on
the calendar. It shows it as cancelled, but it still shows it. I have no
trouble booking another appointment in that time slot. It just shows my
cancelled meeting along with the new one.
We have several resources that will print out the usage for it for the day
or week and this *feature* kind of clutters it up. I know that I can go in
and manually delete it. But, that brings me back to my original question.
Will what I am doing, in a sense direct booking, make things run amuck?
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x7665
-Original Message-
From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:20 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
O.K., you made me go look. The role I give the "Everyone" group is
"Author" that does set Folder Visible on, gives them the ability to create
and read items as well as edit and delete only their own.
Our receptionists have a higher permission level ("Editor" I think) that
lets them do all of the above plus edit and delete other people's items --
since they do a lot of scheduling of conference rooms and need to be able to
resolve conflicts, etc.
My systems administrator has "Owner" permissions (so do I) for doing any
administrative stuff that needs to be done to the mailbox (which is
basically none; since it just runs itself for the most part).
Aloha,
-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3
Director of Information Services
Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:00 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
>
>
> When I tried to do that it did not work. I kept getting a
> message back that I did not have the appropriate permissions
> until I gave myself Author. Also, when I tried to just give
> Create and Read their own items and then tried to uncheck
> Folder visible it took Read Items away.
>
> So, do they not need to have Read Items to make it work correctly?
>
> Ken Powell
> Systems Administrator
> Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
> Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
> Fax: (360) 759-6001
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:53 PM
> To: Exchange 5.5 List
> Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
>
> No, just that they need to have at least the ability to
> create items otherwise it won't accept any of their meeting
> requests. If you don't give them Edit or Delete permissions
> they won't be able to reschedule or cancel meetings.
>
> I give my users permission to add items, and permission to
> edit and delete only their own items. I don't make the
> folder visible, don't let them create subfolders or any of
> that other stuff and it works fine. Most of my users are
> only vaguely aware that there is a Calendar folder for the
> conferences rooms - they just know that if they go into the
> meeting planner they can see the "Gantt Chart" that shows the
> conference room availability.
>
> Aloha,
>
> -Ben-
> Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3
> Director of Information Services
> Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
> http://www.hawaiilawyer.com
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:55 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
> >
> >
> > Ben,
> >
> > Then you are saying that I need to give them Custom
> > privileges with Create, Edit Own and Delete Own checked and
> > nothing else?
> >
> > Ken Powell
> > Systems Administrator
> > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
> > Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
> > Fax:
RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
When I tried to do that it did not work. I kept getting a message back that I did not have the appropriate permissions until I gave myself Author. Also, when I tried to just give Create and Read their own items and then tried to uncheck Folder visible it took Read Items away. So, do they not need to have Read Items to make it work correctly? Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:53 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept No, just that they need to have at least the ability to create items otherwise it won't accept any of their meeting requests. If you don't give them Edit or Delete permissions they won't be able to reschedule or cancel meetings. I give my users permission to add items, and permission to edit and delete only their own items. I don't make the folder visible, don't let them create subfolders or any of that other stuff and it works fine. Most of my users are only vaguely aware that there is a Calendar folder for the conferences rooms - they just know that if they go into the meeting planner they can see the "Gantt Chart" that shows the conference room availability. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 6:55 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > Ben, > > Then you are saying that I need to give them Custom > privileges with Create, Edit Own and Delete Own checked and > nothing else? > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax: (360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:54 PM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > If you're using OL2000 (or later) all you need to do is > create a profile that uses the Conference Room Mailbox, log > in as the account that is the owner of that mailbox (I assume > Exchange 5.5?), start Outlook with that Conference Room > profile, go to Tools | Options | Calendar Options and you > should find a "Resource Scheduling" button (if I recall > correctly). Click it and you'll get a dialog box with > options to automatically accept meetings, decline conflicting > meetings, etc. > > You'll also need to go to the Calendar folder and give the > users you want to be able to schedule the conference room > permissions to the folder - they need to be able to add, edit > and delete at least their own items (they don't need to be > able to view the folder). > > When you're done, close Outlook and you should never need to > log in or set any delegates for conference room scheduling > again. You don't need to keep any workstations running or > logged in just to accept meeting requests - the server will > handle all of it. > > I'm typing this from memory, so I may have missed a step or > something there, but that's basically what you need to do and > it should be fairly easy for you. > > Aloha, > > -Ben- > Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 > Director of Information Services > Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert > http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Kim Kruse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:54 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > > > > Hmmm... that's not working for me. Maybe because I'm using a > > delegate? Well, I'll turn off delegation and play some more. > > If I can get this working, i.e. not having to login with OL2k > > - I can just move the profile to a server. Anyone run > > Outlook2k on the exchange server? Good idea? Bad idea? Thx > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > > > > That's not correct. You don't have to be logged in with > > outlook open if it's >= Outlook 2000, IIRCC. > > > > Andrew, > >
RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
Steven, In an effort to try and keep you on task here and not continue shooting yourself in the foot I will point out that Chris did indeed give you what you asked for. As for you assertion that it requires the same amount of key strokes to just add the six numbers that follows the Q; a case in point is q289606 returns 6 different articles. Only one of which is what I originally posted as a fix for this problem. So, he would have had to post it as "XADM: CDO Can Corrupt Data in Recurring Appointments [Q281935]." As you can see and even you would have to admit that it is considerably more keystrokes than you had originally thought. Not to mention that you are demanding that he show off his godlike qualities by including the exact article and title off the top of his head. Finally, pointing you to Tech Net is quite appropriate. It is kind of like telling someone that that is hungry to "eat everything on their plate to grow up strong" rather than treat them as you would a child and tell them, "First, eat your green beans. Next eat your carrots. Chew each bite 100 times." For me, I prefer being treated like the big boy that I am. (No fat jokes :) ) Is that straightforward enough, eh? I even managed to keep this on-topic. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Steven Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:48 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept Interestingly enough, the same number of keystrokes could have been used to display a knowledgebase article "Qxx" to which you're alluding. But that would be too straightforward, eh? :) -s- > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 2:23 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > TechNet. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steven Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:34 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > > > > Hmm... I've had Outlook98/2K installed on several Exchange > > 5.5 boxes (needed for certain backup agents, the InterOrg > > Synchronization Tool, etc) without any detrimental effects. > Sources? > > > > -s- > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:23 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > > > > > > > What ever you do. Do NOT install Outlook on the Exchange > > > server. There > > > has been known problems with that configuration. Because Exchange > > > Server uses a different MAPI dll than Outlook. > > > > > > Andrew, > > > MCSE (NT & W2K) + CCNA > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
Last I looked; Win2k did not support Robert's script. Plus, I would think that when push came to shove Microsoft would not be able to say that the problem was due to some third party software that you were running. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:41 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept I dont know. I wasnt aware there was an advantage to it. -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 11:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept What is the advantage of using this method vs. Exchange Code's Auto Accept script? John -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 5:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept Hmmm.. I dont know if that is entirely true. IIRC, you have to install Outlook on a 5.5 Server if you want to manage routing agents for a workflow app. And, I know somewhere in Technet there is a Q that states that installing Outlook 2K on an E2k server is not supported as well. Granted, I wouldnt do it..(as I like to keep the mail server as clean as possible), but I dont know if you can make an all encompassing statement such as that. Andy -Original Message- From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept What ever you do. Do NOT install Outlook on the Exchange server. There has been known problems with that configuration. Because Exchange Server uses a different MAPI dll than Outlook. Andrew, MCSE (NT & W2K) + CCNA _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Conference Room Auto Accept
Ben, Then you are saying that I need to give them Custom privileges with Create, Edit Own and Delete Own checked and nothing else? Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:54 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept If you're using OL2000 (or later) all you need to do is create a profile that uses the Conference Room Mailbox, log in as the account that is the owner of that mailbox (I assume Exchange 5.5?), start Outlook with that Conference Room profile, go to Tools | Options | Calendar Options and you should find a "Resource Scheduling" button (if I recall correctly). Click it and you'll get a dialog box with options to automatically accept meetings, decline conflicting meetings, etc. You'll also need to go to the Calendar folder and give the users you want to be able to schedule the conference room permissions to the folder - they need to be able to add, edit and delete at least their own items (they don't need to be able to view the folder). When you're done, close Outlook and you should never need to log in or set any delegates for conference room scheduling again. You don't need to keep any workstations running or logged in just to accept meeting requests - the server will handle all of it. I'm typing this from memory, so I may have missed a step or something there, but that's basically what you need to do and it should be fairly easy for you. Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com > -Original Message- > From: Kim Kruse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:54 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > Hmmm... that's not working for me. Maybe because I'm using a > delegate? Well, I'll turn off delegation and play some more. > If I can get this working, i.e. not having to login with OL2k > - I can just move the profile to a server. Anyone run > Outlook2k on the exchange server? Good idea? Bad idea? Thx > > -Original Message- > From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 4:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > That's not correct. You don't have to be logged in with > outlook open if it's >= Outlook 2000, IIRCC. > > Andrew, > MCSE (NT & W2K) + CCNA > > > -Original Message- > From: Kim Kruse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 3:53 PM > Posted To: NewsgroupDiscussion > Conversation: Conference Room Auto Accept > Subject: Conference Room Auto Accept > > > Since there seem to be so many knowledgeable of this topic, > thought I'd toss out my questions as well: > > In our conference room mail box profile is set a delegate. > The delegates Outlook is always open (as I understand is > required). The theory being this one delegate can Auto Accept > for multiple conference rooms. > > This Outlook is running on a workstation, which must be > restarted weekly (due to other software running). But I must > login on this workstation for Outlook to open, and the > delegate to start auto-accepting. > > I'd like to get to a point where Outlook starts with the > delegates profile, even if I haven't logged in yet. Anyone > know if Outlook can be setup to run as a service (using the > srvany tool)? This would then add another level of security, > as the delegates W2k workstation is in an uncontrolled area. > > Basically, if the system reboots, either from a scheduled > shutdown or power outage - I'd like the AutoAccept to start > working as soon as power came back on - without human intervention. > > Suggestions welcome. > > K _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Yes, those fixes only corrected it so that I could get access back to the
calendar.
Straight from Lori's (not calling you a horse :) ) mouth, NO Direct Booking,
NO Reviewer, Nothin'!!!
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:40 AM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
OK... I understand. But I'm curious though... If by applying the post-SP4
hotfix for Q289606 that is supposed to "correct" this problem, would it
still be necessary to limit direct bookings?
-KHD
--
Kevin H. Devin
IT Systems Administrator
Alerton Technologies, Inc.
Redmond, WA
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Yes, Lori Hunter must have the day off or she would be right in here :)
{Playing the part of Lori Hunter in tonight's performance will be Ken
Powell}
In short, DON'T ALLOW DIRECT BOOKING IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE AUTOACCEPT
SCRIPT Allow ONLY Reviewer access if they need to get into the calendar.
If they complain, tell them that they can not have it both ways and to stop
whining.
{How did I do Lori?}
I just got finished fighting this last week. This has been discussed at
quite some length in the last couple of weeks. A search on "auto accept"
should lead you to it.
The following TechNet articles will show you what I needed to do to correct
it. Q281935 and Q289606.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: Conference Rooms and such...
This past weekend I stumbled across a piece of information that stated that
users should not be allowed to view a resources calendar by doing a "File /
Open / Other User's Folder" as it could break the auto-acceptance and cause
corruption. This bit of info also included steps to prevent this from
happening while leaving the remaining functionality intact.
The problem is... I can't remember where I seen this info. I have gone
through the FAQ, the archives, and TechNet, but am unable to re-locate this
info. Would anyone have a clue as to what I'm referring to and point me in
the right direction? I would greatly appreciate it.
-KHD
--
Kevin H. Devin
IT Systems Administrator
Alerton Technologies, Inc.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Oh No Reviewer too??? What is this world coming to?
Oh the humanity!!
Well, I guess that I will be busy removing that too. Are you up on OL2K? If
so, how is the resource scheduling working for you. I have a few departments
that are all changed to OL2K or better and I have changed their resources to
the ones native to Outlook. I haven't heard anything back yet. If there were
a problem this guy would call.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:44 AM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Hi Ken! Been busy. Changed our reply addresses and my exchange
subscription broke. The NT and SMS ones didn't, but this one wouldn't post
my messages until I unsubbed and resubbed again.
No, I don't allow reviewer anymore either. That is what I understand to be
breaking it, as it confuses the client's free busy with the conference
room's free busy (to Ed's point). BUT there is a way to publish the
calendars on an intranet. I'm not sure if that's mentioned on
Slipstick.com, but I'd guess it is.
If not, I have a zip file that I haven't even looked at yet (have you Don?)
that someone sent me to show me how to get the calendars published. If you
need it, you can contact me off-list.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
You are correct, but they can not modify anything which as I understand it
is what breaks the damned thing. Reviewer is for those who absolutely must
be able to view the resource for a free time prior to booking it.
I know that they can see all of that under the scheduling tab. Baby steps,
baby steps. It also allows them to be able to go in and print the schedule
for posting.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:26 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
That's all fine, but you can be a reviewer and do a File--Open--Other User's
Folder.
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Yes, Lori Hunter must have the day off or she would be right in here :)
{Playing the part of Lori Hunter in tonight's performance will be Ken
Powell}
In short, DON'T ALLOW DIRECT BOOKING IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE AUTOACCEPT
SCRIPT Allow ONLY Reviewer access if they need to get into the calendar.
If they complain, tell them that they can not have it both ways and to stop
whining.
{How did I do Lori?}
I just got finished fighting this last week. This has been discussed at
quite some length in the last couple of weeks. A search on "auto accept"
should lead you to it.
The following TechNet articles will show you what I needed to do to correct
it. Q281935 and Q289606.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: Conference Rooms and such...
This past weekend I stumbled across a piece of information that stated that
users should not be allowed to view a resources calendar by doing a "File /
Open / Other User's Folder" as it could break the auto-acceptance and cause
corruption. This bit of info also included steps to prevent this from
happening while leaving the remaining functionality intact.
The problem is... I can't remember where I seen this info. I have gone
through the FAQ, the archives, and TechNet, but am unable to re-locate this
info. Would anyone have a clue as to what I'm referring to and point me in
the right direction? I would greatly appreciate it.
-KHD
--
Kevin H. Devin
IT Systems Administrator
Alerton Technologies, Inc.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Conference Rooms and such...
You are correct, but they can not modify anything which as I understand it
is what breaks the damned thing. Reviewer is for those who absolutely must
be able to view the resource for a free time prior to booking it.
I know that they can see all of that under the scheduling tab. Baby steps,
baby steps. It also allows them to be able to go in and print the schedule
for posting.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 9:26 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
That's all fine, but you can be a reviewer and do a File--Open--Other User's
Folder.
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Yes, Lori Hunter must have the day off or she would be right in here :)
{Playing the part of Lori Hunter in tonight's performance will be Ken
Powell}
In short, DON'T ALLOW DIRECT BOOKING IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE AUTOACCEPT
SCRIPT Allow ONLY Reviewer access if they need to get into the calendar.
If they complain, tell them that they can not have it both ways and to stop
whining.
{How did I do Lori?}
I just got finished fighting this last week. This has been discussed at
quite some length in the last couple of weeks. A search on "auto accept"
should lead you to it.
The following TechNet articles will show you what I needed to do to correct
it. Q281935 and Q289606.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: Conference Rooms and such...
This past weekend I stumbled across a piece of information that stated that
users should not be allowed to view a resources calendar by doing a "File /
Open / Other User's Folder" as it could break the auto-acceptance and cause
corruption. This bit of info also included steps to prevent this from
happening while leaving the remaining functionality intact.
The problem is... I can't remember where I seen this info. I have gone
through the FAQ, the archives, and TechNet, but am unable to re-locate this
info. Would anyone have a clue as to what I'm referring to and point me in
the right direction? I would greatly appreciate it.
-KHD
--
Kevin H. Devin
IT Systems Administrator
Alerton Technologies, Inc.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Outlook 2000 Rules?
I subscribe all of ours to one address and to one public folder and then let rules move them to the appropriate sub folders from there. That way there is only one address to worry about. It makes it cleaner for me. Simple things for simple minds. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:01 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules? You've got it exactly right. Subscribe a public folder to the list, with its subscription set to receive all mail. Then subscribe your own mail account to the list, but there is an option for it to not receive mail (funny enough, the NOMAIL option). I'm on about 30 lists as well, and I sub all but one to a PF. Lots of advantages. Not the least of which is that the mail rules aren't required and can't break at that point. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com > -Original Message- > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 8:24 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules? > > > I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to subscribe a > public folder and set NOMAIL? > > So I should set a public folder to receive all my mail and I receive > none in my personal box? > > Can you elaborate? > > BTW, I have never had a problem with the subject being prefixed in any > client I have used from OE to Outlook to Entourage to Netscape to > Mozilla on the Mac/PC. Or Pine or Evolution or Netscape or Mozilla on > Linux. This list and the Outlook-Dev list are the only ones out of the > 30 or so I subscribe to that dont prefix the subjects. > > Mike > > -Original Message- > From: Roger Seielstad > Sent: Tue 11/13/2001 7:07 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Cc: > Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules? > > > > Because its obnoxious to add that, as it breaks thread sorting > capabilities > of some clients. > > HINT: If you're not going to follow the best method (subscribe a > public > folder for the mail and your personal account with the NOMAIL > option), set > the rule up to move all mail sent TO "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > Works wonders... > > -- > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT > Senior Systems Administrator > Peregrine Systems > Atlanta, GA > http://www.peregrine.com > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:44 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules? > > > > > > Thats the reason most other lists prefix the subject with the > > list name. > > For example: > > > > [ExchangeDiscussion] Subject > > > > So people can create rules to move it to folders when they > > arrive. This > > is one of the few lists I have been on that does not do that. > > > > Mike > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Robert Moore > > Sent: Tue 11/13/2001 6:31 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Cc: > > Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules? > > > > > > > > I sort on the rule if > > "http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm"; > > appears in the body, then send it to my Exchange List > folder. > > That > > works. > > > > Rob > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 12:07 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Outlook 2000 Rules? > > > > > > Subscribe a public folder. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Tech Consultant > > Compaq Computer > > "There are seldom good technological sol
RE: Conference Rooms and such...
Yes, Lori Hunter must have the day off or she would be right in here :)
{Playing the part of Lori Hunter in tonight's performance will be Ken
Powell}
In short, DON'T ALLOW DIRECT BOOKING IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THE AUTOACCEPT
SCRIPT Allow ONLY Reviewer access if they need to get into the calendar.
If they complain, tell them that they can not have it both ways and to stop
whining.
{How did I do Lori?}
I just got finished fighting this last week. This has been discussed at
quite some length in the last couple of weeks. A search on "auto accept"
should lead you to it.
The following TechNet articles will show you what I needed to do to correct
it. Q281935 and Q289606.
Ken Powell
Systems Administrator
Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS)
Vancouver, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658
Fax: (360) 759-6001
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Devin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Exchange 5.5 List
Subject: Conference Rooms and such...
This past weekend I stumbled across a piece of information that stated that
users should not be allowed to view a resources calendar by doing a "File /
Open / Other User's Folder" as it could break the auto-acceptance and cause
corruption. This bit of info also included steps to prevent this from
happening while leaving the remaining functionality intact.
The problem is... I can't remember where I seen this info. I have gone
through the FAQ, the archives, and TechNet, but am unable to re-locate this
info. Would anyone have a clue as to what I'm referring to and point me in
the right direction? I would greatly appreciate it.
-KHD
--
Kevin H. Devin
IT Systems Administrator
Alerton Technologies, Inc.
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Auto Accept Script
I would think there is scripting involved with OWA, but am not sure. Surely someone will correct me if I am wrong. Although, having the old CDO did not prevent me from accessing the calendar from OWA so I would think that it would not be the culprit. We have been using Exchange 5.5 OWA and sp4 for quite some time without any trouble. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 10:37 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Auto Accept Script Does OWA for 5.5 use CDO? I ask as we have had some users experience this type of calendar corruption recently and the only common factor we can find is that the problem occurred after they had been using OWA & also that their Exchange servers had been upgraded to SP4 in the last month or so. Thanks Mark -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 01 November 2001 17:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Auto Accept Script Well, I finally got it fixed. Thanks to the help and suggestions of all, it is now working. I tried the moving it all to a PST and then moving them back on by one. I could not get it to work since every time that I attempted to do it the system would lock up again. I received several different hotfix CDO.DLLs (q281935, q289606)from Microsoft. None seemed to work; however, one of them did succeed in giving me about 100 or more reminder messages suddenly. As Michael pointed out, it keeps this from happening again, does not fix the current problem. I was never able to get the Exchange client to work for some reason. I was able though to get it up in OWA and delete reoccurring appointments until it started working again. The problem was as Lori has told us all along that the calendar was set up with the Autoaccept script and the ability for users to direct book as well. That has now been changed. For me, it is right up there with PST=BAD. Thanks again to all. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:03 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: FW: Auto Accept Script The fix does not fix existing corrupted meeting notices, it just prevents future ones. Use the exchange client or OWA in conjunction with Outlook to nail down the corrupted meetings by moving a chuck of meetings at a time to a new folder and then trying to open Outlook. Michael Semiglia -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Auto Accept Script Sometimes you just have to export to PST and add the appts back in chunks to find the bad one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Auto Accept Script I am currently going through the same thing. I got the updated CDO.DLL but it did not fix the problem. I will let you know what finally fixes it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:41 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: FW: Auto Accept Script Sounds like you might have corrupted meeting notice. See technet for post sp4 fixes for CDO. CDO is what the auto-accept script uses. Michael Semiglia -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Auto Accept Script Exchange 5.5 SP4 Windows 2000 SP2 Outlook 2000 SP1 Hi all, I am running the Auto Accept Script from exchangecode.com. I have a secretary that did something that is forcing me to directly access the Calendar for the resource running the script but whenever I try to access it Outlook2000 just hangs. I tried running the /cleanfreebusy several times on Friday but it acts the same. Opens and hangs forever. Does anyone know how I can fix this so I can get to the Calendar? The script is still running fine. John _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Auto Accept Script
Well, I finally got it fixed. Thanks to the help and suggestions of all, it is now working. I tried the moving it all to a PST and then moving them back on by one. I could not get it to work since every time that I attempted to do it the system would lock up again. I received several different hotfix CDO.DLLs (q281935, q289606)from Microsoft. None seemed to work; however, one of them did succeed in giving me about 100 or more reminder messages suddenly. As Michael pointed out, it keeps this from happening again, does not fix the current problem. I was never able to get the Exchange client to work for some reason. I was able though to get it up in OWA and delete reoccurring appointments until it started working again. The problem was as Lori has told us all along that the calendar was set up with the Autoaccept script and the ability for users to direct book as well. That has now been changed. For me, it is right up there with PST=BAD. Thanks again to all. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 2:03 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: FW: Auto Accept Script The fix does not fix existing corrupted meeting notices, it just prevents future ones. Use the exchange client or OWA in conjunction with Outlook to nail down the corrupted meetings by moving a chuck of meetings at a time to a new folder and then trying to open Outlook. Michael Semiglia -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 3:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Auto Accept Script Sometimes you just have to export to PST and add the appts back in chunks to find the bad one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Auto Accept Script I am currently going through the same thing. I got the updated CDO.DLL but it did not fix the problem. I will let you know what finally fixes it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:41 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: FW: Auto Accept Script Sounds like you might have corrupted meeting notice. See technet for post sp4 fixes for CDO. CDO is what the auto-accept script uses. Michael Semiglia -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Auto Accept Script Exchange 5.5 SP4 Windows 2000 SP2 Outlook 2000 SP1 Hi all, I am running the Auto Accept Script from exchangecode.com. I have a secretary that did something that is forcing me to directly access the Calendar for the resource running the script but whenever I try to access it Outlook2000 just hangs. I tried running the /cleanfreebusy several times on Friday but it acts the same. Opens and hangs forever. Does anyone know how I can fix this so I can get to the Calendar? The script is still running fine. John _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: Auto Accept Script
I am currently going through the same thing. I got the updated CDO.DLL but it did not fix the problem. I will let you know what finally fixes it. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Semiglia, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:41 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: FW: Auto Accept Script Sounds like you might have corrupted meeting notice. See technet for post sp4 fixes for CDO. CDO is what the auto-accept script uses. Michael Semiglia -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 1:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Auto Accept Script Exchange 5.5 SP4 Windows 2000 SP2 Outlook 2000 SP1 Hi all, I am running the Auto Accept Script from exchangecode.com. I have a secretary that did something that is forcing me to directly access the Calendar for the resource running the script but whenever I try to access it Outlook2000 just hangs. I tried running the /cleanfreebusy several times on Friday but it acts the same. Opens and hangs forever. Does anyone know how I can fix this so I can get to the Calendar? The script is still running fine. John _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sircam Virus
Doesn't PETA[1] object to them being placed in waffle irons? Although, with all of them little indentations in them, the sauce would stay on better. Never heard of them, can you get mac and cheese with them? Finally, to keep this on focus for Stephen, I have received 6 more SirCams and 11 Magstr's since I last reported. [1] People Enjoying Tasty Animals Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:36 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus How about Roscoe's Chicken N Waffles? Do they have any soul food up there? I was skeptical when I went the first time but Roscoe's was the BOMB! John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 1:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sircam Virus No, unfortunately, No. We do however have Taco Del Mar as my good friends from Seattle pointed out. They are the next best thing. Good as they may be though, my heart/belly belongs to Ralph Rubio. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:12 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus They have Rubio's way up in WA? As in Rubio's fish tacos? John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sircam Virus Fine!!! Yes, I am still getting several (sometimes a hundred or more) SirCam's and Magstr's daily. All of them are sent to the bit bucket. Notifying the offenders is of little use so far. Which brings us back to Ed's comment. If I had a million dollars and more Kraft EasyMac I wouldn't be so cranky about all of those damned viruses getting sent in!!! :) Now if I could only get mac and cheese as a side order at Rubio's. You know, something like Pesky Pescado meets Chef Boyardee!!! Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:25 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus I think that this conversation is based on the belief that if we go off on enough tangents, we will eventually arrive back to the original topic... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 9/26/01 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Sircam Virus Reminds me of Bare Naked Ladies' "If I Had a Million Dollars" If I had a $100 We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner But we would eat Kraft Dinner Of course we would, we'd just eat more And buy really expensive ketchups with it That's right, all the fanciest ketch..., Dijon ketchups!! Mm Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus M macaroni! Ed Crowley Compaq Computer --- Great Cthulhu Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All you had to do was yell at people to turn off > macros... > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Martin > Blackstone > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:29 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Athose were the days > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Great Cthulhu > Jones > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Remember the good ol' days of Office Macro viruses? > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Barry Patterson > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > >
RE: Sircam Virus
No, unfortunately, No. We do however have Taco Del Mar as my good friends from Seattle pointed out. They are the next best thing. Good as they may be though, my heart/belly belongs to Ralph Rubio. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: John Martinez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 12:12 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus They have Rubio's way up in WA? As in Rubio's fish tacos? John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sircam Virus Fine!!! Yes, I am still getting several (sometimes a hundred or more) SirCam's and Magstr's daily. All of them are sent to the bit bucket. Notifying the offenders is of little use so far. Which brings us back to Ed's comment. If I had a million dollars and more Kraft EasyMac I wouldn't be so cranky about all of those damned viruses getting sent in!!! :) Now if I could only get mac and cheese as a side order at Rubio's. You know, something like Pesky Pescado meets Chef Boyardee!!! Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:25 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus I think that this conversation is based on the belief that if we go off on enough tangents, we will eventually arrive back to the original topic... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 9/26/01 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Sircam Virus Reminds me of Bare Naked Ladies' "If I Had a Million Dollars" If I had a $100 We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner But we would eat Kraft Dinner Of course we would, we'd just eat more And buy really expensive ketchups with it That's right, all the fanciest ketch..., Dijon ketchups!! Mm Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus M macaroni! Ed Crowley Compaq Computer --- Great Cthulhu Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All you had to do was yell at people to turn off > macros... > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Martin > Blackstone > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:29 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Athose were the days > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Great Cthulhu > Jones > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Remember the good ol' days of Office Macro viruses? > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Barry Patterson > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Magistrate is also still coming around pretty well. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Osborn, Joel > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Yea. It's still runnign amuck. Almost half of our > intercepted viruses > are still SirCam. > > Joel K. Osborn > Information Systems Technical Specialist > Wisconsin Department of Transportation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:50 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sircam Virus > > > Hello, > > Is everyone still getting many attachments infected > by the > W32.Sircam.Worm@mm virus? Any many of you my NAV for > Exchange is setup > to delete any attachments that may have this virus > in them. Im getting > a ton of Admin Alerts of attachme
RE: Sircam Virus
Fine!!! Yes, I am still getting several (sometimes a hundred or more) SirCam's and Magstr's daily. All of them are sent to the bit bucket. Notifying the offenders is of little use so far. Which brings us back to Ed's comment. If I had a million dollars and more Kraft EasyMac I wouldn't be so cranky about all of those damned viruses getting sent in!!! :) Now if I could only get mac and cheese as a side order at Rubio's. You know, something like Pesky Pescado meets Chef Boyardee!!! Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Stephen Mynhier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 11:25 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus I think that this conversation is based on the belief that if we go off on enough tangents, we will eventually arrive back to the original topic... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions Sent: 9/26/01 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Sircam Virus Reminds me of Bare Naked Ladies' "If I Had a Million Dollars" If I had a $100 We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner But we would eat Kraft Dinner Of course we would, we'd just eat more And buy really expensive ketchups with it That's right, all the fanciest ketch..., Dijon ketchups!! Mm Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus M macaroni! Ed Crowley Compaq Computer --- Great Cthulhu Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All you had to do was yell at people to turn off > macros... > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Martin > Blackstone > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:29 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Athose were the days > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Great Cthulhu > Jones > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Remember the good ol' days of Office Macro viruses? > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Barry Patterson > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Magistrate is also still coming around pretty well. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Osborn, Joel > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Yea. It's still runnign amuck. Almost half of our > intercepted viruses > are still SirCam. > > Joel K. Osborn > Information Systems Technical Specialist > Wisconsin Department of Transportation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:50 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sircam Virus > > > Hello, > > Is everyone still getting many attachments infected > by the > W32.Sircam.Worm@mm virus? Any many of you my NAV for > Exchange is setup > to delete any attachments that may have this virus > in them. Im getting > a ton of Admin Alerts of attachments infected with > this virus being > deleted. Just want to know if others are getting a > lot too. > > Thanks, _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sircam Virus
Reminds me of Bare Naked Ladies' "If I Had a Million Dollars" If I had a $100 We wouldn't have to eat Kraft Dinner But we would eat Kraft Dinner Of course we would, we'd just eat more And buy really expensive ketchups with it That's right, all the fanciest ketch..., Dijon ketchups!! Mm Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:05 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: Sircam Virus M macaroni! Ed Crowley Compaq Computer --- Great Cthulhu Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All you had to do was yell at people to turn off > macros... > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Martin > Blackstone > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 10:29 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Athose were the days > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Great Cthulhu > Jones > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 8:24 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Remember the good ol' days of Office Macro viruses? > > (:= > Great Cthulhu Jones > CEO, R'lyeh Consulting > http://www.zzzptm.com/cthulhu > http://www.bad-managers.com > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Barry Patterson > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Magistrate is also still coming around pretty well. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf > Of Osborn, Joel > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 4:11 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Sircam Virus > > > Yea. It's still runnign amuck. Almost half of our > intercepted viruses > are still SirCam. > > Joel K. Osborn > Information Systems Technical Specialist > Wisconsin Department of Transportation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: Sethi, Ali [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 3:50 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Sircam Virus > > > Hello, > > Is everyone still getting many attachments infected > by the > W32.Sircam.Worm@mm virus? Any many of you my NAV for > Exchange is setup > to delete any attachments that may have this virus > in them. Im getting > a ton of Admin Alerts of attachments infected with > this virus being > deleted. Just want to know if others are getting a > lot too. > > Thanks, > > _ > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ: > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ > List posting FAQ:
RE: anti-virus protection for Exchange server os
If you are talking about having NetShield and Groupshield on the same box, don't!!! I have only seen trouble with that combination. GSE should be all that you need. You shouldn't be using the Exchange box for user shares anyway. That having been said, Robert is correct :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Garrish, Robert B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 11:22 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: anti-virus protection for Exchange server os Dear Steven, Wawa uses NAI for both NetShield and GroupShield. To get to your issue, we have set up exclusions in NetShield Any drive letter:\exchsrvr\ and subfolders This works fine for us. Rob Garrish Exchange Administrator Wawa Inc. 610-558-8371 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Steven Plender [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 09:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: anti-virus protection for Exchange server os We are currently using Antigen Anti-virus software on all of our Exchange servers. We have not used any other anti-virus software to protect the server or operating system itself. Three years ago when the Exchange systems were being installed it was known that file scanning anti-virus software could or would corrupt information store files and perhaps log files as well. The architect recommended that no anti-virus software be installed at that time. Desktops and other servers are protected with file scanning anti-virus software which is updated nightly. We have been asked / directed to install server file scanning software (NAI) on our Exchange servers. This weekend I have been running it in the lab on an Exchange server and have excluded the partition with the information store and the partition with the log files. Can you tell me what the consensus is on this issue and do you run server anti-virus software along with Exchange aware anti-virus software. Thanks. Steve Plender RBC DS __ Sent with PAWSoft MiniMail Download MiniMail for FREE now! http://www.pawsoft.co.uk _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: today's admin backwards virus
I have seen it happen that a message has been released and then I have been notified that it contained virus and was cleaned or deleted. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:40 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus I would double check that with NAI. I've asked for that to happen a number of times and they have told me that if you block mail and then turn and release, that it does not rescan it. I've asked for this to change. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:30 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > Why? I would think that you would want it to be scanned for known viruses > in > case it contained something that I had missed. When it quarantines due to > content filtering it is never scanned. Once it is released, then it is > scanned. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax:(360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:27 PM > To: Powell, Ken > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > No you should send all porn to me so I can verify if it business > applicable. > > Ken, > The one thing you need to watch for when you quarantine the mail is that > NAI > does not send it back through the scanning routine when you go to send it > on. I know of one person who was burned this way. > > > -Original Message- > > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:18 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject:RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > > You have it set up to send all attatchments to administrator email box? > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:16 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > > > > Good points Eric. That is exactly what we are doing with NAI's Webshield > > SMTP. I should have mentioned that we are quarantining rather than > > blocking > > in the true sense. > > > > Ken Powell > > Systems Administrator > > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > > Vancouver, Washington > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > > Fax:(360) 759-6001 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:29 AM > > To: Exchange 5.5 List > > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > > > > The nice thing about MAILsweeper for SMTP (and I'm assuming others - I > > haven't used them) is that you can quarantine messages, not just block > > them. > > We had MAILsweeper quarantine all "suspicious" incoming content and send > a > > notification to the recipient that they had a message in quarantine. > Our > > policy was that any user could request a message be released to them, at > > which point we (the admins) would review the message on a threat basis > > only > > and release at our discretion. > > > > A nice side benefit of this policy was that even though we were not > > policing > > the content of our incoming mail (impossible with 20,000+ recipients) > the > > users were under the impression that we may have been. So they were > > telling > > their buddies to stop sending them porn, executables, etc for fear that > > they > > were being watched. > > > > Eric > > > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:07:05 -0400, "Exchange Discussions" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Well, there's a fundamental problem we have here; we're a public > > library, > > > and freedom to write and receive email here is not to be impinged in > any > > > way. Even in blocking certain attachment types, I'm kind of stepping > > over > > > the line. So, in terms of filtering for any virus-relat
RE: today's admin backwards virus
Why? I would think that you would want it to be scanned for known viruses in case it contained something that I had missed. When it quarantines due to content filtering it is never scanned. Once it is released, then it is scanned. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:27 PM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus No you should send all porn to me so I can verify if it business applicable. Ken, The one thing you need to watch for when you quarantine the mail is that NAI does not send it back through the scanning routine when you go to send it on. I know of one person who was burned this way. > -Original Message- > From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:18 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > You have it set up to send all attatchments to administrator email box? > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:16 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > Good points Eric. That is exactly what we are doing with NAI's Webshield > SMTP. I should have mentioned that we are quarantining rather than > blocking > in the true sense. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax:(360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:29 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > The nice thing about MAILsweeper for SMTP (and I'm assuming others - I > haven't used them) is that you can quarantine messages, not just block > them. > We had MAILsweeper quarantine all "suspicious" incoming content and send a > notification to the recipient that they had a message in quarantine. Our > policy was that any user could request a message be released to them, at > which point we (the admins) would review the message on a threat basis > only > and release at our discretion. > > A nice side benefit of this policy was that even though we were not > policing > the content of our incoming mail (impossible with 20,000+ recipients) the > users were under the impression that we may have been. So they were > telling > their buddies to stop sending them porn, executables, etc for fear that > they > were being watched. > > Eric > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:07:05 -0400, "Exchange Discussions" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, there's a fundamental problem we have here; we're a public > library, > > and freedom to write and receive email here is not to be impinged in any > > way. Even in blocking certain attachment types, I'm kind of stepping > over > > the line. So, in terms of filtering for any virus-related terminology, > I > > can probably get away with using software that filters for language. > But, > I > > will be told by management to turn it off if we attempt to do anything > that > > restricts anything else. That's why I mentioned that it was not of > great > > concern. > > > > Matt > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:02 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > > > > Blocking for certain words is an important part of filtering for viruses > in > > my opinion. > > > > Ken Powell > > Systems Administrator > > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > > Vancouver, Washington > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > > Fax:(360) 759-6001 > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:00 AM > > To: Exchange 5.5 List > > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > > > > So, does anyone have a strong opinion on what filtering software to use? > We > > haven't done anything along those lines before (hell, we didn't have > > antiv
RE: today's admin backwards virus
Matt, In Groupshield you can go to the On-Access tab and then select "Attachment Blocking" and then Specified Attachments" that is where you would set the extensions that you wish to block. - Taken from the Help file in GSE: 4 In the Attachment blocking box, select one of these options to tell the Groupshield Exchange software which, if any, attachments should be excluded from on-access scan operations and quarantined immediately. § No blocking subjects all attachments that you specified in Scanning options to the on-access scan operation but will not block any. § All attachments sends all the attachments that arrive in a public folder or mailbox immediately to the quarantine location. The All attachments option is particularly useful during a major outbreak of a virus spread by e-mail attachments, for example, the Melissa virus. § Specified attachments can send named attachment types straight to the quarantine location before being scanned. It can also block attachments of a certain filename or size. Copyright ©1998-2000 Networks Associates Technology, Inc. All Rights Reserved. I hope that this helps. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:40 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Ken, We use Groupshield here as well, and we do have it quarantining those messages that contain virus-infected attachments. I was not aware of any ability to actually block attachment types through Groupshield, or am I reading you wrong? Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus No, Webshield places the messages in a Quarantine folder and can be viewed with Notepad there. Blocked messages go into a Blocked folder. Groupshield is set up to place them in a quarantine database. Notices are sent to the administrator so that we can first see that a message has been stopped and second that several messages may suddenly be being stopped. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:18 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus You have it set up to send all attatchments to administrator email box? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Good points Eric. That is exactly what we are doing with NAI's Webshield SMTP. I should have mentioned that we are quarantining rather than blocking in the true sense. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:29 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus The nice thing about MAILsweeper for SMTP (and I'm assuming others - I haven't used them) is that you can quarantine messages, not just block them. We had MAILsweeper quarantine all "suspicious" incoming content and send a notification to the recipient that they had a message in quarantine. Our policy was that any user could request a message be released to them, at which point we (the admins) would review the message on a threat basis only and release at our discretion. A nice side benefit of this policy was that even though we were not policing the content of our incoming mail (impossible with 20,000+ recipients) the users were under the impression that we may have been. So they were telling their buddies to stop sending them porn, executables, etc for fear that they were being watched. Eric On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:07:05 -0400, "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, there's a fundamental problem we have here; we're a public library, > and freedom to write and receive email here is not to be impinged in any > way. Even in blocking certain attachment types, I'm kind of stepping over > the line. So, in terms of filtering for any virus-related terminology, I > can probably get away with using software that filters for language. But, I > will be told by management to turn it off if we
RE: today's admin backwards virus
No, Webshield places the messages in a Quarantine folder and can be viewed with Notepad there. Blocked messages go into a Blocked folder. Groupshield is set up to place them in a quarantine database. Notices are sent to the administrator so that we can first see that a message has been stopped and second that several messages may suddenly be being stopped. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Avi Smith-Rapaport [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:18 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus You have it set up to send all attatchments to administrator email box? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Good points Eric. That is exactly what we are doing with NAI's Webshield SMTP. I should have mentioned that we are quarantining rather than blocking in the true sense. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:29 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus The nice thing about MAILsweeper for SMTP (and I'm assuming others - I haven't used them) is that you can quarantine messages, not just block them. We had MAILsweeper quarantine all "suspicious" incoming content and send a notification to the recipient that they had a message in quarantine. Our policy was that any user could request a message be released to them, at which point we (the admins) would review the message on a threat basis only and release at our discretion. A nice side benefit of this policy was that even though we were not policing the content of our incoming mail (impossible with 20,000+ recipients) the users were under the impression that we may have been. So they were telling their buddies to stop sending them porn, executables, etc for fear that they were being watched. Eric On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:07:05 -0400, "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, there's a fundamental problem we have here; we're a public library, > and freedom to write and receive email here is not to be impinged in any > way. Even in blocking certain attachment types, I'm kind of stepping over > the line. So, in terms of filtering for any virus-related terminology, I > can probably get away with using software that filters for language. But, I > will be told by management to turn it off if we attempt to do anything that > restricts anything else. That's why I mentioned that it was not of great > concern. > > Matt > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > Blocking for certain words is an important part of filtering for viruses in > my opinion. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax:(360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:00 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > So, does anyone have a strong opinion on what filtering software to use? We > haven't done anything along those lines before (hell, we didn't have > antivirus until last year). I just want to use it for blocking attachments; > we don't care about abilities relating to disclaimers or scanning for > certain language/words. Any opinions would help. > > Thanks! > > Matt > > -Original Message- > From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > Jennifer, > Most everyone has already hit on the obvious, most of us use the auto-update > feature from the A/V product of our choosing. Then we go the extra step and > use some sort of filtering, be it at the fire wall or just simple attachment > blocking in our e-mail server A/V product. Here I block > .exe;.vbs;.eml;.shs;.lnk attachments from even getting through the e-mail > server. Take what has h
RE: today's admin backwards virus
Good points Eric. That is exactly what we are doing with NAI's Webshield SMTP. I should have mentioned that we are quarantining rather than blocking in the true sense. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:29 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus The nice thing about MAILsweeper for SMTP (and I'm assuming others - I haven't used them) is that you can quarantine messages, not just block them. We had MAILsweeper quarantine all "suspicious" incoming content and send a notification to the recipient that they had a message in quarantine. Our policy was that any user could request a message be released to them, at which point we (the admins) would review the message on a threat basis only and release at our discretion. A nice side benefit of this policy was that even though we were not policing the content of our incoming mail (impossible with 20,000+ recipients) the users were under the impression that we may have been. So they were telling their buddies to stop sending them porn, executables, etc for fear that they were being watched. Eric On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:07:05 -0400, "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, there's a fundamental problem we have here; we're a public library, > and freedom to write and receive email here is not to be impinged in any > way. Even in blocking certain attachment types, I'm kind of stepping over > the line. So, in terms of filtering for any virus-related terminology, I > can probably get away with using software that filters for language. But, I > will be told by management to turn it off if we attempt to do anything that > restricts anything else. That's why I mentioned that it was not of great > concern. > > Matt > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:02 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > Blocking for certain words is an important part of filtering for viruses in > my opinion. > > Ken Powell > Systems Administrator > Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) > Vancouver, Washington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 > Fax:(360) 759-6001 > > > -Original Message- > From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:00 AM > To: Exchange 5.5 List > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > So, does anyone have a strong opinion on what filtering software to use? We > haven't done anything along those lines before (hell, we didn't have > antivirus until last year). I just want to use it for blocking attachments; > we don't care about abilities relating to disclaimers or scanning for > certain language/words. Any opinions would help. > > Thanks! > > Matt > > -Original Message- > From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus > > > Jennifer, > Most everyone has already hit on the obvious, most of us use the auto-update > feature from the A/V product of our choosing. Then we go the extra step and > use some sort of filtering, be it at the fire wall or just simple attachment > blocking in our e-mail server A/V product. Here I block > .exe;.vbs;.eml;.shs;.lnk attachments from even getting through the e-mail > server. Take what has happened to your site up the ladder as a reason to > put all this stuff in place! You might get some resistance, and even some > complaints, however every time one of these things happens the efforts you > have made will be seen and will be appreciated. TrueSecure > www.trusecure.com has some good white papers on what types of attachments > you should be, or at least thinking about blocking. > > Oh, the other thing we did was, well we threw IIS right out the window!! > > Good Luck > > Jeffrey R. Waters > Senior Systems Engineer > Information Technology, Hanover County > > > -Original Message- > From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:10 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: today's admin backwards virus > > > I was just noticing that most of the gurus of the list had plenty of time > to respond to the list regarding various questions. Am I m
RE: nimda virus changes on me
Maybe it's just me, but, if your servers were infected I would rebuild them as a matter of principle. You are only cleaning up the symptoms and closing the hole after someone has already been in and "touched" you. The only way that I know of to be assured of having truly cleaned the system is to start fresh with all appropriate patches and then reinstall programs and data. Anyone have any comments? Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Ron Jameson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:57 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: nimda virus changes on me Well, I just put in a 24 hour shift to patch the ol' web, email, main and terminal servers in one form or another and clean up 30 workstations. Was a little too late in the blocking of all .exe files on the sybari but I think this one entered thru the front web door on a client PC hitting an infected web site. Odd - two of the PC's out of the 30 were REALLY infected so as I could not repair. I need to format these boxes. Has anyone seen this virus change or morph into other executables other that the noted ones (riched20.dll, readme.exe, load.exe, modified system.ini, plus several other windows programs)? Regards, Ron Jameson _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: today's admin backwards virus
Then why have any AV software at all? You wouldn't want to impinge upon someone's "right" to send you a virus and their "right" to make you execute it!! Content filtering for words and language in the context of defending against attacks is not the same as blocking for objectionable words (which is often open for debate as to what would constitute objectionable words). Quite often, prior to the release of DAT signatures for a current outbreak, the only thing that you will have to go on is the existence of a certain word or phrase. We too are local government. What happens in our case is that when messages that come in that break a filter, we manually look at the message to see if it is indeed the virus. It is strictly a Yes/No proposition, not a civil liberties issue. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:08 AM To: Powell, Ken Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Well, there's a fundamental problem we have here; we're a public library, and freedom to write and receive email here is not to be impinged in any way. Even in blocking certain attachment types, I'm kind of stepping over the line. So, in terms of filtering for any virus-related terminology, I can probably get away with using software that filters for language. But, I will be told by management to turn it off if we attempt to do anything that restricts anything else. That's why I mentioned that it was not of great concern. Matt -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 12:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Blocking for certain words is an important part of filtering for viruses in my opinion. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:00 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus So, does anyone have a strong opinion on what filtering software to use? We haven't done anything along those lines before (hell, we didn't have antivirus until last year). I just want to use it for blocking attachments; we don't care about abilities relating to disclaimers or scanning for certain language/words. Any opinions would help. Thanks! Matt -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Jennifer, Most everyone has already hit on the obvious, most of us use the auto-update feature from the A/V product of our choosing. Then we go the extra step and use some sort of filtering, be it at the fire wall or just simple attachment blocking in our e-mail server A/V product. Here I block .exe;.vbs;.eml;.shs;.lnk attachments from even getting through the e-mail server. Take what has happened to your site up the ladder as a reason to put all this stuff in place! You might get some resistance, and even some complaints, however every time one of these things happens the efforts you have made will be seen and will be appreciated. TrueSecure www.trusecure.com has some good white papers on what types of attachments you should be, or at least thinking about blocking. Oh, the other thing we did was, well we threw IIS right out the window!! Good Luck Jeffrey R. Waters Senior Systems Engineer Information Technology, Hanover County -Original Message- From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: today's admin backwards virus I was just noticing that most of the gurus of the list had plenty of time to respond to the list regarding various questions. Am I missing something? I have been updating virus software, scanning mailboxes, patching iis/owa servers etc. all night. We were hit externally, but we only had to restore one webserver (although it was similiar to a slightly compressed support.microsoft.com). Is there some secret to this sh*t that you are keeping from me regarding quick draw administration or is this something you pawn off to others? I will compensate for information. (Depending on validity.) I'm not jealous or bitter, btw...not. Jennifer Baker Fluke Corporation http://www.fluke.com http://www.flukenetworks.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: today's admin backwards virus
Blocking for certain words is an important part of filtering for viruses in my opinion. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Matt Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:00 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus So, does anyone have a strong opinion on what filtering software to use? We haven't done anything along those lines before (hell, we didn't have antivirus until last year). I just want to use it for blocking attachments; we don't care about abilities relating to disclaimers or scanning for certain language/words. Any opinions would help. Thanks! Matt -Original Message- From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: today's admin backwards virus Jennifer, Most everyone has already hit on the obvious, most of us use the auto-update feature from the A/V product of our choosing. Then we go the extra step and use some sort of filtering, be it at the fire wall or just simple attachment blocking in our e-mail server A/V product. Here I block .exe;.vbs;.eml;.shs;.lnk attachments from even getting through the e-mail server. Take what has happened to your site up the ladder as a reason to put all this stuff in place! You might get some resistance, and even some complaints, however every time one of these things happens the efforts you have made will be seen and will be appreciated. TrueSecure www.trusecure.com has some good white papers on what types of attachments you should be, or at least thinking about blocking. Oh, the other thing we did was, well we threw IIS right out the window!! Good Luck Jeffrey R. Waters Senior Systems Engineer Information Technology, Hanover County -Original Message- From: Jennifer Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 6:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: today's admin backwards virus I was just noticing that most of the gurus of the list had plenty of time to respond to the list regarding various questions. Am I missing something? I have been updating virus software, scanning mailboxes, patching iis/owa servers etc. all night. We were hit externally, but we only had to restore one webserver (although it was similiar to a slightly compressed support.microsoft.com). Is there some secret to this sh*t that you are keeping from me regarding quick draw administration or is this something you pawn off to others? I will compensate for information. (Depending on validity.) I'm not jealous or bitter, btw...not. Jennifer Baker Fluke Corporation http://www.fluke.com http://www.flukenetworks.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Fax server - What is the best solution?
What about "That response deserves a High Five and that is four more than I normally give." Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:08 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: Fax server - What is the best solution? Well it was a different response than what I normally might have sent, but I'm actually busy today and don't have the time. ;o) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rocky Stefano Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Fax server - What is the best solution? You realize that even if I didn't get that response from you I had already expected it :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: September 4, 2001 4:52 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Fax server - What is the best solution? To discuss Fish Taco's of course!! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Rocky Stefano Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Fax server - What is the best solution? What's the point of a discussion list then? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: September 4, 2001 4:34 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Fax server - What is the best solution? It gets no less confusing when everyone chimes in with his or her preferences, either. I suggest you review the products based on your own need and cost parameters. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation (soon to be HP) All your base are belong to us. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Olson Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 1:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Fax server - What is the best solution? Missy, I actually looked at that, I even have my printed copy of the FAQ. I was just wondering what people were using here on the fourm. There is so mnay different ones that it gets sort of confusing. Gordon -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Fax server - What is the best solution? I'd suggest checking the handy-dandy FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm. It's so good I even memorized the URL. Missy - Original Message - From: "Gordon Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 3:18 PM Subject: Fax server - What is the best solution? I would like to get your opinion on what you feel is the best Fax Solution. We are Running Exchange 5.5 SP4 and no plans to move to Exchange 2000 until May 2002. We have a Terminal Server \ Citrix XP enviroment using Outlook 2000. We have 52 remote locations and would like a Fax solution that would use Outlook, what do you suggest? TIA Gordon _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesea
RE: Virus Backdoor/ccinvader
We just started seeing it. McAfee catches it as "New Backdoor" more information can be found at http://vil.nai.com/vil/virusSummary.asp?virus_k=99198 Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Bourque Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 10:11 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Virus Backdoor/ccinvader OK, please don't laugh... Inoculan is not running on Exchange, just the workstations... Inoculan have been reporting multiple files infected by the BACKDOOR/CCINVADER virus since the last update this week-end (Sig 27.47). Anybody have seen this virus before? A search on Sybari, Trend Micro, Norton and McAfee return nothing and CA don't have any description for the virus. A search on Google return sites with the virus but I have not find description. Anybody with a tech description of the virus or is it a false alarm??? Daniel Bourque Analyste - Centre d'Assistance Technique Loto-Québec [EMAIL PROTECTED] (514) 499-5056 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Public Folder Rules
I do it all of the time. In fact, that is how I sub this list. All messages are sent to a central address and then forwarded using Folder Assistant with message intact to the appropriate PF as well as the appropriate PF that serves as an archive. You need to publish the PF to the GAL so that you can choose it under Folder Assistant. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Tim John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 5:41 PM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Public Folder Rules Hi all, I have configured a Public Folder to receive email directly (through its SMTP address). This works fine for most of the incoming mail but some - with specific words in the subject - need to go into another folder. Originally, the mail used to be delivered to a users mailbox and a client rule applied to split the mail up and forward to two public folders. Is there a way of creating a similar rule but just for the Public Folder ? Any ideas appreciated. Thanks, Tim _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Everyone group
Not only can you, but, you should. An all users DL is a virus' best friend :) Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Carine Lim, SystEng, SCSM/NSB [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 12:45 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Everyone group Hi Everyone... Can I block the use of #EVERYONE group and limit the use to managers only? The reason is that I do not want the staff here to simply send mail to everyone. Are there any other limitations? Thank you Carine Enjoy substantial cost savings through a more efficient end-to-end procurement process. For details click here :- http://www.scs.com.my/scsNews.asp?article=31 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Mailbox capacity
Are you sure that they understood that you were talking about Exchange and not MSMail? I have users with that much unread mail in their Inbox alone!!! Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Orin Rehorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 7:49 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Mailbox capacity Two questions, please. We have some users growing pretty hefty mailboxes, one over 300 MB. A tech told me mailboxes over 50 MB and certainly 100 MB can cause performance problems. Agree? (I haven't seen performance degredation yet.) The tech reccommends we have users create personal folders and move files there. While experimenting with this, we noticed restrictions when dragging a folder from the mailbox to personal folders. Looks like you can't move a folder with subfolders. Please comment. Regards, Orin Rehorst Port of Houston Authority (Largest U.S. port in foreign tonnage) e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (713)670-2443 Fax: (713)670-2457 TOPAS web site: _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Haiku Friday
Poetry gives wings Are you sure about that Dan Red Bull would argue Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 6:37 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Re: Haiku Friday Poetry gives wings To that part in all of us Dormant due to work. - Original Message - From: "LSeltzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:27 AM Subject: RE: Haiku Friday > Why have poetry? > Must it always be funny? > Was that funny? > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:24 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Haiku Friday > > > Haiku poetry > three lines of five, seven and > five syllables. Easy. > > - Original Message - > From: "Mike Morrison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:12 AM > Subject: RE: Haiku Friday > > > > Poorly is the word, > > but it was not a bad try. > > It ain't easy, eh? > > > > Mike Morrison > > NT/SMS/Exchange Administrator > > Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 9:09 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Haiku Friday > > > > > > my first haiku try > > this is not an easy feat > > I think I did poor > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Denis Baldwin > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 5:54 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Haiku Friday > > > > > > Friday it is here > > Haiku can begin again > > Send in your words now > > > > Denis > > > > Denis A. Baldwin (A+/MCP/I-Net+/Net+/CCA/CIW) > > Network Administrator, CAE, Inc. > > 810-231-9373, ext. 229 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. This e-mail may > contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the named > addressee, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this > message or any part of it. In addition, you are hereby notified that any > use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this communication is > strictly prohibited. > > The sender of this message does not accept liability for any errors or > omissions in the contents of this message that arise as a result of e-mail > transmission. This message is provided for informational purposes and should > not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities. > > Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this > e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscr
RE: Outlook XP - cant read .EXE attachment
See Q290497. OL2002: Cannot Access Attachments. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: BY [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 4:40 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Outlook XP - cant read .EXE attachment Dear all, I am sure you have noticed that Outlook XP by default would not receive attachment files that with file extensions .exe or .com. Do you anyone know how to enable them to be readable? Thanks in advanced. BY _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: User Friendly Exchange List
"You like me, you really like me." Your case is well taken, I just thought that Larry had a point. A point often brought up right behind Favorite Virus Checker, Disclaimer, How do I tell if I have Standard or Enterprise The reputation of this list is well known. I am on several lists, many of which have nothing to do with Exchange, and the *flavor* of this list is well known. That being said, I find it hard to believe that someone would not know what they were in for when they join. I never had the pleasure of being on the list when Peter ran it. I have heard it spoken of quite fondly though. As for back when we had 2 Ed's, I miss Mr. Woodrick as well. I had the pleasure of *sitting at his feet* at a conference once. He even turned me on the getting a GPS to find my way around cities when I am away at all of those conferences :) A junior Admin or newbie list will not find much use though I fear. It is known that this is the place to go for all things Exchange. If they knew enough to go to the other list, then they would also know enough to research their questions first. I know that I get better than consultant answers here and am amazed at what information is distributed freely here all for the *love* of Exchange. I need to go now, I am getting all verklempt!!! Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:50 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Re: User Friendly Exchange List I know who you are, Ken. :) In any case, my curiosity was really spurred by the intervention of someone who has not, in the past 18 months or so, posted to this list. I can check the archives back to the beginning, but that's really not my point at all. I do think that this list is often out of hand - and it's been up and down like this since I've been a member of it. Sometimes, the flames are wild, other times, we're all quite nice. The only thing that doesn't change is Ed. :) (It was even more fun when we had two Ed's!) In any case, a list for nice questions about Exchange is fine. Maybe even a newbie, or Jr. Admin list. The fact is, and you know this, that the stuff that's covered in the FAQ is covered in the FAQ. If someone wants to pay me to do consulting, I'll be happy to bring their business to the company where I work. When I first joined this list, it had a reputation. It is what it is. I miss Peter's quiet interventions, but, other than that, I think we're just fine. I'm rambling though. Later... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:21 PM Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List Missy, You will probably find few by me as well other than NAI/McAfee related. I don't know about much else:) I have *learnt* quite alot from this list, you and Ed especially. Larry does bring up a good point though. This list does have a reputation that does not seem to occur on other lists that these same people are on (E2K list for one). As for the value of a list that Larry hosts, all I can speak to is the one that he set up for Scripting. He is every bit as knowledgeable about Scripting and SMS (as has already been pointed out) as anyone on this list is about Exchange. He gives of his time and skills and requires no more than you or Ed would in return. Only time will tell if there is a need for what Larry is proposing. As for why you do not see many post by me on this list, I have always tried to follow the advise found in JOB 13:5 "If only you would be altogether silent, for you that would be wisdom." NIV Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:37 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Re: User Friendly Exchange List Gee, Larry, I can't find any posts by a Larry Duncan (or a "Duncan, Larry" or a "Duncan, Lawrence" or a "Lawrence Duncan") in the archives that I currently have available. But they only go back to February 2000, so I guess you've been lurking for a couple years. Your answers below remind me of a certain smarmy congressman who was on TV a week or so ago. What's the whole answer here? I don't believe we're getting it. You're free to start your own list. I do hope it's a success. I don't think I'll be playing though. If I tire of this list, I can go visit the E2K one that Martin hosts, or the Sunbelt Softwar
RE: User Friendly Exchange List
Consider yourself slapped. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: Rocky Stefano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:31 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List YES! Jessuu has spoken!! Slap my forehead now please -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August 29, 2001 2:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List Missy, You will probably find few by me as well other than NAI/McAfee related. I don't know about much else:) I have *learnt* quite alot from this list, you and Ed especially. Larry does bring up a good point though. This list does have a reputation that does not seem to occur on other lists that these same people are on (E2K list for one). As for the value of a list that Larry hosts, all I can speak to is the one that he set up for Scripting. He is every bit as knowledgeable about Scripting and SMS (as has already been pointed out) as anyone on this list is about Exchange. He gives of his time and skills and requires no more than you or Ed would in return. Only time will tell if there is a need for what Larry is proposing. As for why you do not see many post by me on this list, I have always tried to follow the advise found in JOB 13:5 "If only you would be altogether silent, for you that would be wisdom." NIV Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:37 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: Re: User Friendly Exchange List Gee, Larry, I can't find any posts by a Larry Duncan (or a "Duncan, Larry" or a "Duncan, Lawrence" or a "Lawrence Duncan") in the archives that I currently have available. But they only go back to February 2000, so I guess you've been lurking for a couple years. Your answers below remind me of a certain smarmy congressman who was on TV a week or so ago. What's the whole answer here? I don't believe we're getting it. You're free to start your own list. I do hope it's a success. I don't think I'll be playing though. If I tire of this list, I can go visit the E2K one that Martin hosts, or the Sunbelt Software list, or the newsgroups, all of which offer additional Exchange information. Missy - Original Message - From: "Larry A. Duncan MCP, MCT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:44 PM Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List See inline comments. Besides, Larry; Aren't you an SMS guru? Thanks for the compliment. Yes, SMS is my core competency. But any mail list is more than one person. > > > Have you even posted to this list? Yes, in the past I have. However, I'm on of the many that is turned off by the tone of the group. As such, I've changed my settings to webbased only and I now only refer to it on an as-needed basis. You're not trying to steal subscribers to a competing service, are you? Steal? Steal? Are these users owned by you? The Internet offers a vast number of resource for people to use. I'm now providing a more user friendly environment for passing information regarding Exchange. If the users come, that that's their choice and perhaps a signal to this group that you can be excellent without attitude. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:28 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List > >=20 > >=20 > > I still maintain that if you don't like the services of this=20 > > list, just > > request a refund of your subscription fee. > >=20 > > -Mich=E8le > > Immigration site: <http://LadySun1969.tripod.com> > > Our new 2001 Miata: <http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley> > > Tiggercam: <http://www.tiggercam.co.uk> > > - > > Murphy's Technology Laws Murphy's Technology Law #1: You can=20 > > never tell > > which way the train went by looking at the track.=20 > > - > >=20 > >=20 > > -Original Message- > > From: Larry A. Duncan MCP, MCT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday,
RE: User Friendly Exchange List
I sent that to someone who is constantly saying that. Next thing I know, everyone has it. Thank god for SIS. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:24 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List No problem, Ken. I forget where I stole it from! :-) -Michèle Immigration site: <http://LadySun1969.tripod.com> Our new 2001 Miata: <http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley> Tiggercam: <http://www.tiggercam.co.uk> - An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he/she knows absolutely everything about nothing. - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List Michèle, I had to steal your talk to the hand. Not quite the same as the one that I saw the other day on a bumper. It had a picture of someone giving you the middle finger instead. Perhaps it could become the *official* icon of this list :) Sorry, I couldn't resist. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax:(360) 759-6001 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 8:36 AM To: Exchange 5.5 List Subject: RE: User Friendly Exchange List o__, <| /\ Talk to the hand! that's between you & your accountant! -Michèle Immigration site: <http://LadySun1969.tripod.com> Our new 2001 Miata: <http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley> Tiggercam: <http://www.tiggercam.co.uk> - Life's golden age is when the kids are too old to need baby-sitters and too young to borrow the family car. - _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
