Message size limits in place, server still affected by HUGE messages
Hello, I have several size limitations for messages in place (in 'Global settings' for Message delivery in the whole organisation, at the Internet Mail Connector) to prevent huge messages both internally and externally. Although these limits are used, the server can still be brought to its knees by sending huge messages. The current limit is 10MB, but submitting a message with a 500MB attachment (Yes, we actually have users who tried this. Worse: They had no clue that was 'not done') brought the server to a halt. Similar messages but smaller in size (for example 75MB) kept the server really busy and many users were disconnected but were eventually returned (you get a NDR with again the original 75MB message inside :-( But there is a KB Article that explains how to strip/cut-off large messages.) Is there a way to prevent these huge messages from being accepted and processed by the server? The current limits are in place, but don't prevent the server from processing anyway. I'm thinking of something that would just disconnect the submit when a certain amount of data has been reached, or better, check size before processing. The clients mostly use Outlook/MAPI to connect. Regards, Michel Erdmann _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist
VeriSign Sued Over Controversial Web Service: An Internet search company on Thursday filed a $100 million antitrust lawsuit against VeriSign Inc., accusing the Web address provider of hijacking misspelled and unassigned Web addresses with a service it launched this week. Read more (source): http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNewsstoryID=3471297 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Clishe Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist I'm surprised how quiet this group is being regarding this issue. This has potentially enormous ramifications. For one thing, this effectively breaks reverse-DNS lookups that anti-spam applications use to verify sending domains as being valid. Come on now, Verisign is masking the difference between a valid domain and NXDOMAIN for all protocols, all users, and all software. Doesn't anyone here have an opinion? Jason -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 8:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: All .COM / .NET domain names now exist [My apologies for the cross-post, but this has the potential to impact just about everybody who uses the Internet...] As of a little while ago (it is around 7:45 PM US Eastern on Mon 15 Sep 2003 as I write this), VeriSign added a wildcard A record to the .COM and .NET TLD DNS zones. The IP address returned is 64.94.110.11, which reverses to sitefinder.verisign.com. What that means in plain English is that most mis-typed domain names that would formerly have resulted in a helpful error message now results in a VeriSign advertising opportunity. For example, if my domain name was somecompany.com, and somebody typed soemcompany.com by mistake, they would get VeriSign's advertising. (VeriSign is a company which purchased Network Solutions, another company which was given the task by the US government of running the .COM and .NET top-level domains (TLDs). VeriSign has been exploiting the Internet's DNS infrastructure ever since.) This will have the immediate effect of making network trouble-shooting much more difficult. Before, a mis-typed domain name in an email address, web browser, or other network configuration item would result in an obvious error message. You might not have known what to do about it, but at least you knew something was wrong. Now, though, you will have to guess. Every time. Some have pointed out that this will make an important anti-spam check impossible. A common anti-spam measure is to check and make sure the domain name of the sender really exists. (While this is easy to force, every little bit helps.) Since all .COM and .NET domain names now exist, that anti-spam check is useless. VeriSign's commentary: http://www.verisign.com/resources/gd/sitefinder/implementation.pdf http://www.verisign.com/resources/gd/sitefinder/bestpractices.pdf Third-party reference: http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/d04afc52ae9da2ee80256d9c0018be8b -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: bridgehead/smtp best practices?
I also question your assertion that mailbox servers need more frequent reboots. I've moved many of the special purpose mailboxes (for example listserver list POP boxes, FAX Gateway) off the mailbox server. I'm in favour of the general idea to separate them from plain mailbox servers, but not because the mailbox server reboots more often: it's the opposite. The (3rd party mostly) software which comes with these boxes and connectors are mostly the problem. I can keep the mailbox server up and running just fine and rarely reboot it. Michel -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve B Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions I seem to be involved in a bit of philosophical debate and want to get opinions from the field on this. Basically, I have some service mailboxes that I would prefer not to run on regular mailbox servers. These particular mailboxes do not hold any email, they are simply needed for the cirictal operation of exchange dependant third party services (like a peice of monitoring software that needs its own mailbox). They pose no risk to any server and do not need special attention. I feel better if they reside on infrastructure servers such as bridgeheads or smtp gateways since these servers tend to have less problems than regular mailbox servers do (as far as is's stopping or mailbox servers needing to be rebooted more often and then large transaction logs replaying that contribute to a longer down time for these services that rely on the mailbox). What do you guys/gals feel about this? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step?
192.192.192.0 isn't a private range RFC1918 states: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets: 10.0.0.0- 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix) 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) I'm wondering why the remote servers doesn't block your mail, because basically you are using them to relay. Must be because the remote mail server sees your mail server as 'local' (some quick relay testing for the tajen.edu.tw domain show correctly configured relay restrictions) Michel -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? I think I'm on to something The network here is a privately addressed LAN, mailgate.partition.co.uk resolves to the firewall, which forwards port 25 to the exchange server The LAN network address is 192.192.192.0/255.255.255.0 set up before I arrived, I was a good engineer and gave the other subnets 192.168.x.x ranges :) 192.192.192.0 isnt a private range is it? When I put one of our server addresses into an IPWHOIS search, this tajen.edu.tw domain comes up as the owner I guess I need to change the network address range here? Yuck Anything else or a possible workaround? We are WINS only, DNS servers for internet access are at our ISP thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 04 March 2003 15:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? Roger Sorry about that, just sent another email and generated the following, you Can see the erroneuos .edu.tw domain here === This is the Outlook Options as viewed by the recipient === Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from eratosthenes by eratosthenes with qmail-deliver for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Zen-Test-Header-Please-Ignore: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Zen-Virusscan-Flag: zen12940 - flag is unset Received: (qmail 17356 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - Received: from parmenides.zen.co.uk (212.23.8.69) by eratosthenes.zen.co.uk with QMTP; 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - Received: (qmail 10266 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - Received: from mailgate.partition.co.uk (HELO webserv.local) (62.49.146.170) by parmenides.zen.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - X-Zen-Trace: 62.49.146.170 Received: by medmgmt-15.tajen.edu.tw with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id G259C6KT; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:41 - Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Niki Blowfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test Message Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:40 - MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C2E263.92B511D8 === And this is logged by the IMS in event viewer on the sending server === Delivery of message [EMAIL PROTECTED] w from [EMAIL PROTECTED] in temporary file G259C6KT was attempted to host(s) 212.23.8.69 (for zen.co.uk) with 1 recipients delivered and 0 undliverable -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 March 2003 15:26 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? Post one that hasn't been modified. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? Hi Been asked to look at this for someone Server is Exch 5.5 SP3 running on NT4 SP6a Upon examining logs routinely, it seems outbound internet mail is going via another IMS at another company The Edu.TW domain is nothing to do with us, and mail should go direct from ourdomain.co.uk to recipientsdomain.com I wont profess to being particularly well versed at reading mail headers, but could someone suggest what the hell is going on here? Thanks; === This is the Outlook Options as viewed by the recipient === Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from ourexchangserver.local
RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step?
I think he could send mail to the tajen.edu.tw domain, as long as his mail server IP address doesn't match the tajen.edu.tw MX IP itself. He's using WINS only and uses external DNS servers. I see options for keeping the address AND mailing tajen.edu.tw ;-) Seriously: I would change IP ranges ASAP. Michel -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? Yes, or you'll never be able to send mail to tajen.edu.tw! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? So I guess the best thing to do is, as quick as possible, move over to a 192.168 address range -Original Message- From: Michel Erdmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 March 2003 16:25 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? 192.192.192.0 isn't a private range RFC1918 states: The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets: 10.0.0.0- 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix) 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix) I'm wondering why the remote servers doesn't block your mail, because basically you are using them to relay. Must be because the remote mail server sees your mail server as 'local' (some quick relay testing for the tajen.edu.tw domain show correctly configured relay restrictions) Michel -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? I think I'm on to something The network here is a privately addressed LAN, mailgate.partition.co.uk resolves to the firewall, which forwards port 25 to the exchange server The LAN network address is 192.192.192.0/255.255.255.0 set up before I arrived, I was a good engineer and gave the other subnets 192.168.x.x ranges :) 192.192.192.0 isnt a private range is it? When I put one of our server addresses into an IPWHOIS search, this tajen.edu.tw domain comes up as the owner I guess I need to change the network address range here? Yuck Anything else or a possible workaround? We are WINS only, DNS servers for internet access are at our ISP thanks -Original Message- From: Niki Blowfield - Exchange Sent: 04 March 2003 15:42 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Internet mail taking an obscure extra step? Roger Sorry about that, just sent another email and generated the following, you Can see the erroneuos .edu.tw domain here === This is the Outlook Options as viewed by the recipient === Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from eratosthenes by eratosthenes with qmail-deliver for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Zen-Test-Header-Please-Ignore: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Zen-Virusscan-Flag: zen12940 - flag is unset Received: (qmail 17356 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - Received: from parmenides.zen.co.uk (212.23.8.69) by eratosthenes.zen.co.uk with QMTP; 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - Received: (qmail 10266 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - Received: from mailgate.partition.co.uk (HELO webserv.local) (62.49.146.170) by parmenides.zen.co.uk with SMTP; 4 Mar 2003 15:33:40 - X-Zen-Trace: 62.49.146.170 Received: by medmgmt-15.tajen.edu.tw with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id G259C6KT; Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:41 - Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Niki Blowfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Test Message Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:34:40 - MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_=_NextPart_001_01C2E263.92B511D8 === And this is logged by the IMS in event viewer on the sending server === Delivery of message [EMAIL PROTECTED] w from [EMAIL PROTECTED] in temporary file G259C6KT was attempted to host(s) 212.23.8.69 (for zen.co.uk) with 1 recipients delivered
RE: New Exchange Server
Eeeeuh, maybe because they had to 'exchange' a disk. Michel -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server What does that have to do with Exchange? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: New Exchange Server Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about that for reliability? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: in-place upgrade to W2K (NOT Exchange 2000)
We are running (and have performed the in-place upgrade) on Compaq hardware. I recall we used a special 'primer' utility from them just before starting the actual upgrade to remove the NT4 specific drivers/agents/software which were incompatible with Windows 2000. Michel Erdmann -Original Message- From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: in-place upgrade to W2K (NOT Exchange 2000) Tomorrow I am upgrading our mail servers from NT4/SP6a, Exchange 5.5(SP4) to Windows 2000 Server/SP2. Just an upgrade of the operating system, not exchange 2000 or active directory. Has anyone experienced any problems that I need to know of, prior to the upgrade? As far as I know, it should be a seemless upgrade. Stick in the CD-rom and let it do it's thing. I will have to upgrade our raid controllers firmware and nt driver and also export/inport our verisign certificate to the new IIS. That is all I can think of...thanks for any advice before this critical task. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: Invisible PF mail address after mixed to native mode
I have the exact same problem and posted it to the Exchange 2000 list. No repsonse. If you indeed contacted PSS (I haven't until today), let me know if they know the issue (and better, how to fix it) Should this require a non-public fix, I'll call them as well. Regards, Michel Erdmann -Original Message- From: Jang Man [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 9:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Invisible PF mail address after mixed to native mode Since I didn't get any feedback, is this question so trivial or have I encountered something unusual and is time to call PSS? __ Jang Man Ixtlan Team -Original Message- From: Jang Man Posted At: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:59 PM Posted To: MS Exchange Conversation: Invisible PF mail address after mixed to native mode Subject: Invisible PF mail address after mixed to native mode Morning, Exchange 2000 SP2, single site/server. I've changed mode from mixed to native today, because migration from 5.5 is long over. Now in System Manager half of tabs are missing on folders, which were migrated from 5.5 system, those created on Ex2000 are ok. No big problem, but e-mail tab is also missing, althou folders have SMTP addresses. When I Mail enable the folder, all tabs are visible, but no e-mail addresses there, until they are populated according to policy. But these are new mail addresses like: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] is already valid address for this folder and it works. But this one is not visible! I want to get those valid SMTP addreses to be visible again. How? tnx, __ Jang Man Ixtlan Team _ List posting FAQ: http://www.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: fix monitor
I thought I would see 'Wayne's World' show up here sometime when a new thread called something like Sarcasm on the list (NOT) was started here a few days ago. Party time, excellent -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor Richard, have you seen Waynes World? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 January 2002 12:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor Handsom Dan: Sure ok hum ok sure yeah got ya -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 7:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor No need. Just curious. Its Like when you listen to someone on the radio everyday and you build a mental picture of what he/she looks like. And more often than not, they look nothing like you imagined. Think 'Handsome Dan' in Waynes World. Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Ben Schorr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 19:16 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor Should I be concerned that photos of the lovely Kelly belly dancing led to this question?[1] ;-) -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com [1] I too have met Ed.[2] [2] He wasn't belly dancing at the time.[3] [3] Neither was I.[4] [4] Kelly's whereabouts at the time are unaccounted for. -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 1:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor Anyone ever wondered what Ed Crowley looks like? Regards Mr Louis Joyce Computer Support Analyst Network Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2002 10:18 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: fix monitor That would be her... - Original Message - From: Jerry W. Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:01 AM Subject: RE: fix monitor Is this pictures of you Kelly? http://kellyborndale.homestead.com/photo.html Jerry W. Hubbard [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor Who, me? I belly dance, and that is generally done barefoot. ~ -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 |+--- || John Matteson| || [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 01/08/2002 01:17 PM | || Please respond to| || Exchange Discussions | || | |+--- - -- --| | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: RE: fix monitor | - -- --| Roger: Has she flamencos danced on you with her high heels? John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Believe nothing because it is written in books. Believe nothing because wise men say it is so. Believe nothing because it is religious doctrine. Believe it only because you yourself know it to be true. -- Buddha -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor Dude - Ms. Baker can take you. Trust me. And please know from experience you don't want to be on her special list.
