RE: multiple mailings

[Randal, Phil]

Do everyone a favour and send out plain text emails with a link to the web
page holding the information.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Holstrom, Don
> J.
> Sent: 08 January 2004 14:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: multiple mailings
> 
> 
> I am the IT guy at a museum in Washington, D.C. We have an 
> e-mail list of
> over 5,000 to whom we send weekly HTML e-mails. My old e-mail program,
> PostCast Server & Pro Server, no longer work as they should. 
> So I am looking
> for another program.
> 
> Is there anything that works within Exchange? 5.5, 2K, or 2003?
> 
> The maillist grows and is changed weekly. So I download a new 
> database for
> each mailing. Otherwise I could just set up multiple 
> distribution lists
> within Outlook.
> 
> Anyone else doing something similar to this?
> 
> _
> 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]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

_
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]

To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

RE: TONS of NDR's

[Randal, Phil]

Or one of the many email address spoofing viruses may be doing it for you.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Erik Sojka
> Sent: 19 December 2003 14:52
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: TONS of NDR's
> 
> 
> You may be relay free (i.e. a spammer is *not* using your 
> servers as a relay)
> but said scumbag is using one of your addresses as a forged 
> "From:" address.
> 
> 
> 1) spammer sends out messages appearing to come from 
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> 2) many many many recipients do not exist
> 3) receiving mail systems send the NDR bounce to the perceived sender
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> 4) ???
> 5) profit!
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:47 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: TONS of NDR's
> > 
> > 
> > Exch5.5 sp4 on win2k sp4
> > 
> > 
> > I have no idea where they are all comming from.  Every 
> > morning I come in and
> > the que is stacked with 24,000+ NDR messages, they look 
> like spam but
> > abuse.net spamcop, openrbl, and ordb all say I am relay free, 
> > IT policy
> > forces strong passwords and guest is disabled.  I'm at a loss 
> > where these
> > messages are comming from, but they look like they are relaying.
> > 
> > Reading the open relay/spamcop thread I wonder if someone got 
> > compromised,
> > is there a logging setting that will tell me what user 
> > accounts are being
> > used to auth against?  Or does anyone know what events those 
> > would be logged
> > as?  Any help is always greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > e-
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Open Relay/Spamcop

[Randal, Phil]

strong passwords = post-it(tm) notes on monitors = weak passwords ;-)

Merry Christmas everyone,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Crowley
> [MVP]
> Sent: 18 December 2003 21:32
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> Strong passwords mean much more than forced changes.
> 
> 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 Eric Fretz
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 8:49 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> I agree with Ben.  My Exchange 2000 box at my last company 
> was setup to
> allow realaying after sucessfuly authentication because I had 
> POP3 clients
> at other offices that had no other SMTP gateway.  Disabling the Guest
> account and forcing the users to change passwords every 30 
> days kept our
> risk at a minimum.  We got tagged as a relay once, but 
> forcing user password
> changes on the spot fixed the problem.   
> 
> Eric Fretz
> 
> L-3 Communications
> ComCept Division
> 2800 Discovery Blvd.
> Rockwall, TX 75032
> tel:   972.772.7501
> fax:  972.772.7510
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> I still think you are smoking crack on this, Greg.  I have 
> never seen a
> properly configured Exchange 2000 server relay UNLESS a user 
> account was
> compromised, or the guest account was enabled.  I've tested 
> it and tested
> again, and never found Exchange to relay with those settings. 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:37 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Open Relay/Spamcop
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> Hey, thanks for the confirmation. People have told me that I 
> am smoking
> crack and that the Exchange servers were horribly 
> misconfigured. It's nice
> to know that I am not smoking crack.
> 
> > I concur with greg ... our server had those settings and we 
> were being
> 
> > used as a relay ... turned off "Allow all computers which 
> successfully
> 
> > authenticate to relay, regardless of the list above." and 
> that stopped
> 
> > it ...
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:17 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: Open Relay/Spamcop
> > 
> > 
> > This may or may not be the problem, but I have seen spammers able to
> > relay off an Exchange server if the following configuration applies:
> > 
> > 1. If "Anonymous access" is turned on. SMTP Virtual Server 
> properties,
> 
> > Access page, Authentication. 2. And, "Allow all computers which
> > successfully authenticate to relay, regardless of the list 
> above." is 
> > checked. SMTP Virtual Server properties, Access page, Relay.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Hello All and Happy Holidays!
> > >=20
> > > I have a colleague whos Exchange 2000 server is being reported as
> > >Open
> > 
> > > Relay by spamcop for the past month.  I have tested his 
> relay by=20
> 
> > >setting up a POP account in Outlook, putting the server that is
> > >being=20  reported as Open relay as my Outgoing SMTP server. =3D20 
> > >=20  When I try to send a message using Outlook, I get a return 
> > >message
> > that
> > > 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay.  I am relieved that it could not
> relay.
> > > That is good, however, why then is spamcop still reporting it to
> > >be=20  open relay? =3D20 =20  I have checked (over the 
> phone) all his
> 
> > >Virtual SMTP Server settings=20  to verify correct configuration.
> > >Everything seems to be "checked" or=20  "unchecked" as 
> recommended by
> 
> > >Microsoft.
> > >=20
> > > We have Stopped/Started Services for SMTP =20  The Exchange 2000
> > >server is behind a NAT and I have looked into the=20  
> possibility of 
> > >this.  I have been out on the spamcop site and for the=20  
> life of me
> 
> > >cannot find a way to make them check the server again to=20  see if
> > >it is closed relay like ORDB does. =3D20 =20  Any ideas or 
> > >comments =3D20 =20 =20 =20  Samantha Bridges  Communications 
> > >Technician  Macomb Intermediate School District
> > > 44001 Garfield Road
> > > Clinton Township  MI  48038-1100
> > > (586) 228-3300
> > >=20
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.misd.net
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any 
> > >attachments,
> > 
> > > is for the sole use of the intended recip

RE: Open Relay/Spamcop

[Randal, Phil]

Looking at http://openrbl.org/# is also very revealing.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of 
> Roger Seielstad
> Sent: 18 December 2003 17:50
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> One of the reasons I like SpamCop (and actually use it 
> myself) is because
> you can look up the actual reason a box is on the list:
> http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml
> 
> Put the IP address in and it will show an example of exactly 
> why they're
> listed.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 10:59 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Open Relay/Spamcop
> > 
> > 
> > Hello All and Happy Holidays!
> > 
> > I have a colleague whos Exchange 2000 server is being 
> reported as Open
> > Relay by spamcop for the past month.  I have tested his relay 
> > by setting
> > up a POP account in Outlook, putting the server that is 
> being reported
> > as Open relay as my Outgoing SMTP server.  
> > 
> > When I try to send a message using Outlook, I get a return 
> > message that
> > 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay.  I am relieved that it could 
> not relay.
> > That is good, however, why then is spamcop still reporting it 
> > to be open
> > relay?  
> > 
> > I have checked (over the phone) all his Virtual SMTP Server 
> > settings to
> > verify correct configuration.  Everything seems to be "checked" or
> > "unchecked" as recommended by Microsoft.
> > 
> > We have Stopped/Started Services for SMTP
> > 
> > The Exchange 2000 server is behind a NAT and I have looked into the
> > possibility of this.  I have been out on the spamcop site 
> and for the
> > life of me cannot find a way to make them check the server 
> > again to see
> > if it is closed relay like ORDB does.  
> > 
> > Any ideas or comments  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Samantha Bridges
> > Communications Technician
> > Macomb Intermediate School District
> > 44001 Garfield Road
> > Clinton Township  MI  48038-1100
> > (586) 228-3300
> > 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.misd.net
> > 
> > 
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any 
> attachments,
> > is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> > confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized 
> review, use,
> > disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not 
> the intended
> > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
> > copies of the original message.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Open Relay/Spamcop

[Randal, Phil]

Try checking with http://www.abuse.net/relay.html

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bridges,
> Samantha
> Sent: 18 December 2003 15:59
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Open Relay/Spamcop
> 
> 
> Hello All and Happy Holidays!
> 
> I have a colleague whos Exchange 2000 server is being reported as Open
> Relay by spamcop for the past month.  I have tested his relay 
> by setting
> up a POP account in Outlook, putting the server that is being reported
> as Open relay as my Outgoing SMTP server.  
> 
> When I try to send a message using Outlook, I get a return 
> message that
> 550 5.7.1 Unable to relay.  I am relieved that it could not relay.
> That is good, however, why then is spamcop still reporting it 
> to be open
> relay?  
> 
> I have checked (over the phone) all his Virtual SMTP Server 
> settings to
> verify correct configuration.  Everything seems to be "checked" or
> "unchecked" as recommended by Microsoft.
> 
> We have Stopped/Started Services for SMTP
> 
> The Exchange 2000 server is behind a NAT and I have looked into the
> possibility of this.  I have been out on the spamcop site and for the
> life of me cannot find a way to make them check the server 
> again to see
> if it is closed relay like ORDB does.  
> 
> Any ideas or comments  
> 
> 
> 
> Samantha Bridges
> Communications Technician
> Macomb Intermediate School District
> 44001 Garfield Road
> Clinton Township  MI  48038-1100
> (586) 228-3300
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.misd.net
> 
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments,
> is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
> confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
> copies of the original message.
> 
>  
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: IFS

[Randal, Phil]

How???

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/
bulletin/MS03-043.asp

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ben Winzenz
> Sent: 16 December 2003 14:56
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IFS
> 
> 
> Don't pay any attention to him.  He's kidding.  Eric?  You're kidding,
> right???  Eric???
> 
> Seriously though, I'd disable that service.  It's part of my standard
> build procedures for all servers (there is no reason that you need to
> send popup messages to/from servers) and it does not affect anything
> else.
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:55 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: IFS
> Subject: RE: IFS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How? 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Fretz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: dinsdag 16 december 2003 15:47
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IFS
> 
> 
> Because you have been own3d by 31137 hax0rs.
> 
> 
> Eric Fretz
> 
> L-3 Communications
> ComCept Division
> 2800 Discovery Blvd.
> Rockwall, TX 75032
> tel:   972.772.7501
> fax:  972.772.7510
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:49 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IFS
> 
> 
> Why is your messenger service running?  You can safely disable it. 
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:41 AM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: IFS
> Subject: RE: IFS
> 
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> I was worried, because I received a number of messenger 
> pop-ups on that
> server, and it is behind a firewall and no-one should be able to do
> that, then I bumped on to that file... 
> 
> Kim
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: dinsdag 16 december 2003 15:36
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: IFS
> 
> 
> Those are temp files. They should be deleted by the store at 
> some point
> during normal processing.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 9:29 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: IFS
> 
> 
> Help, 
> 
> Under the folder mdbdata there is suddenly a .IFS file, can 
> anyone tell
> me what it is/does, and how it got there? 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&
> lang
> =english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&
> lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=eng

RE: What is SPAM - Please comment

[Randal, Phil]

That's definitely spam.  No question about it.  Unless your colleagues have
specifically asked for emails about telco offers, that is.  And of course we
all know that they haven't.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 15 December 2003 12:54
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: What is SPAM - Please comment
> 
> 
> Dear All
> 
> I would be interested in any comments about the following ethical
> problem.
> 
> Recently I was contacted by an acquaintance who sent me the following
> email.
> 
> >>
> 
> Hi
> 
> I would be grateful if you could forward an email to your colleague's
> users about a number of telephony and Internet access packages I am
> involved in offering to BT users.  The Broadband Offerings start at
> £15.99, which I believe is amongst the cheapest around.  
> Tiscali that I
> know you have good experiences of supplies the packages.  
> They would all
> save your users money and some of them are free.  If you want to you
> could join up as an associate and make money as well.  The 
> users can find
> out more info by visiting www.telco-store.com 
> 
> Thanks for your assistance.
> 
> >.
> 
> My question to you is whether if I were to send out a mail to my
> colleagues would you consider this Spam.  I do believe that this is a
> good offering from a reputable company which would save my users money
> but it could fall under the category of unsolicited email. 
> However  so is
> a global email to my users warning them of Spam from Nigeria 
> for example
> or warning them that somebody has left their car headlights on in the
> works carpark !! Do you consider this different to producing a paper
> notice about this offering and sticking it on the works notice board.
> 
> I welcome your comments
> 
> -- 
> http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent 
> email service?
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Virus with XP

[Randal, Phil]

This is reminiscent of the QHosts-1 trojan:

  http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_100719.htm

The information in the link will give you a few clues as to what might have
been changed.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Nguyen
> Sent: 10 November 2003 15:52
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Virus with XP
> 
> 
> What is the name of this file and where is it location?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 7:46 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Virus with XP
> 
> 
> Check to see if your local hosts file has a bunch of bogus entries.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Virus with XP
> 
> 
> My home computer (window XP) was infected with virus and I 
> clean it. Now
> when I open my browser and go to www.google.com it take me to another
> website www.cpanel.net. Has anyone seen this before and I do 
> I fix this?
> Thank
> 
> Tony Nguyen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> System Administrator/DBA
> Senior Aerospace Jet Products
> www.jetproducts.com
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: SPAM filtering on a budget

[Randal, Phil]

If you could accept a *n?x solution, I'd recommend taking a look at
Mailscanner, which integrates Spamassassin, Razor, Pyzor, DCC and virus
scanning in a relatively easy to configure setup.  Support is excellent via
the Mailscanner mailing list.

You can find it at http://www.mailscanner.info

I'm about to build a box using it, so I might feel differently about it in a
few weeks.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt 
> Plahtinsky
> Sent: 28 October 2003 16:22
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: SPAM filtering on a budget
> 
> 
> Hello list,
> I know SPAM filtering products have been covered in great 
> detail but I'm
> having problems finding a good gateway SPAM filtering product 
> that's not
> going to cost me a lot of money. I have a small organization of about
> 100 users.  The products that I have found that are reasonably priced
> are Xwall ($360.00) and SpamAssassin (free). My problem with
> SpamAssassin is that I don't know the first thing about Linux 
> so that's
> out of the question.  Xwall seems like a good product but I want a few
> more to compare.  My budget won't allow for more than about $800.00.
> What cheep products are you using.  Good/Bad experiences.  
> Any help with
> my product search would be great.  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Matt
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Drives almost at capacity

[Randal, Phil]

That sounds normal.  In my experience users always forget to clean out Sent
Items, too.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 September 2003 15:36
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Drives almost at capacity
> 
> 
> Looks like your users did not clean that much after all...
> 
> Are you using deleted item retention? If so, how many days? The mail
> that users have deleted is probably sitting there now and will sit for
> the specified number of days, hogging the space.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Andrey Fyodorov
> Systems Engineer
> Messaging and Collaboration
> Spherion
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jake Wallendal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 10:30 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Drives almost at capacity
> 
> my bad. The Priv and 24 MB when the online defrag was done. 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Drives almost at capacity

[Randal, Phil]

You won't.  Exchange takes but doesn't give back.  Only an offline defrag
will shrink the Information Store files.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jake Wallendal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 September 2003 14:57
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Drives almost at capacity
> 
> 
> I am waiting for our new server but am almost out of drive 
> space. I had
> people clean their mailboxes (probably 3.5 GB) but I dont see 
> the freed up
> space on the Hard drives. What do I need to do to see the 
> free'd up space?
> 
> Thanks a ton to anyone who can help!
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Upgrade Questions

[Randal, Phil]

Like the M: drive ;-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 July 2003 17:10
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
> 
> 
> How true.  It's funny that, when faced with MSMail, a lot of the
> knowledge does creep back into the brain eventually!  :-)
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: 31 July 2003 16:56
> Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
> Conversation: Upgrade Questions
> Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
> 
> 
> Meh.
> 
> Whatever does the job.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 July 2003 16:52
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
> 
> 
> We had a customer request MSMail support late last year.  We 
> all ran for
> cover.
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient
> or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential
> information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you 
> are not the
> intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in
> reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, 
> please notify
> the sender immediately and delete from your system. 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. 
Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do 
not necessarily represent those of Silversands.

If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support 
Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.silversands.co.uk  


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Upgrade Questions

[Randal, Phil]

Or local government ;-)

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 31 July 2003 16:15
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
> 
> 
> You've never worked for a bank, have you?
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Beckham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 11:13 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
> > 
> > 
> > Don't know the date, but it will probably be the military.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Fyodorov,
> > Andrey
> > Posted At: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:30 AM
> > Posted To: Exchange Discussion List
> > Conversation: Upgrade Questions
> > Subject: RE: Upgrade Questions
> > 
> > Who wants to start placing bets on when the last NT 4.0 
> Domain will be
> > upgraded to Win2K AD?   :)
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:49 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Upgrade Questions
> > 
> > Hello All.
> > 
> > This weekend we will be upgrading our NT 4.0 PDC to Active 
> Directory.
> > Currently, my Exchange 5.5 sp4 server is running Windows 
> 2000 Advanced
> > Server.  I am a bit confused as to what will happen to my Exchange
> > server
> > when the PDC upgrades?  Once the PDC is upgraded, the 
> Exchange server
> > will
> > be joined automatically to AD, right?  What things do I 
> need to do on
> > the
> > Exchange server to prepare it for this weekends PDC upgrade?  
> > I will be
> > upgrading Exchange 5.5 to 2000 in two weeks, however I need 
> > to know what
> > I
> > should do for the preparation of the AD upgrade on the Exchange 5.5
> > server.
> > Do I need to do nothing at all?
> > 
> > What is this ADC (Active Directory Connector) and when is this used?
> > During
> > the Exchange 2000 upgrade?
> > 
> > Thanks for any clarification, comments and answers.
> > 
> > Samantha
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface:
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&
> lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Reccomended Black Lists

[Randal, Phil]

The best thing to do is what my home ISP does.

They use relays.osirusoft.com and add an X-Whatevertheylike
header to each email from a listed IP address.  Then users
can filter possible spams based on that header's presence.

So tagging as possible spam, but not blocking, and then using
rules to move incoming mails into a "possible junk mail" folder
is a good compromise.  And real mail which ends up there on
a regular basis can be dealt with by filtering rules which
deal with it before the "spam" rule.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 July 2003 16:37
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Reccomended Black Lists
> 
> 
> I find that most of them are run by vigilantes. There is no 
> accountability
> for these lists. They can do as they please and most often 
> do. I'm not going
> to trust my business  email to someone like that.
> 
> Since you have no control over what gets blocked, you could 
> find yourself
> missing valuable business email without knowing it.  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Brasslett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:35 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Reccomended Black Lists
> 
> Really?  Do you find them to be inaccurate?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:32 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Reccomended Black Lists
> 
> 
> None 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Aaron Brasslett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 8:33 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Reccomended Black Lists
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm planning to install spam blocking software soon and I was 
> wonder what
> mailhost black lists you all recommend.  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Error Loading SP4 on Exchange 2000

[Randal, Phil]

That's my preferred method of patching Exchange Servers too,
after I had some grief with Exchange 5.5 SP2.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 25 July 2003 16:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Error Loading SP4 on Exchange 2000
> 
> 
> I've gone as far as disabling services and rebooting sometimes.
> 
> Neil
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: 25 July 2003 16:20
> Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
> Conversation: Error Loading SP4 on Exchange 2000
> Subject: RE: Error Loading SP4 on Exchange 2000
> 
> 
> As stated in the original msg I did that. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:18 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Error Loading SP4 on Exchange 2000
> 
> Shut down all extraneous services. Server agents, backup 
> agents, all AV
> agents, etc.
> Manually stop Exchange, and IIS as well. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 8:18 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Error Loading SP4 on Exchange 2000
> 
> Windows 2000 SP3 Advanced Server
> Exchange 2000 SP3 with Post SP3 Rollup
> Trend Micro Scanmail 6.1
> Trend Micro Server Protect 5.5
> IIS Lockdown 2.1 using Exchange 2000/OWA template URL Scan Installed
> 
> When I install SP4 for Windows 2000 on this box I get the following
> errors:
> 
>   Unable to write ScriptMaps metabase entry
> 
>   and
> 
>   Failed to execute regsvr32.exe. Error code: 5.
> 
> We always shutdown all AntiVirus Software but in addition I have tried
> the
> following:
> 
> Removing IIS Lockdown and URL scan
>   Still got same errors
> 
> Shutting down all IIS related services
> Shutting down all Exchange related services Shutting down all SNMP
> related services
>   Still got same errors
> 
> I am Domain Admin with full rights to this box anyone got any ideas?
> 
> Also nothing shows up in the event logs these are just window pop-up
> errors.
> 
> I have successfully installed SP4 on 2 other Exchange 2000 
> servers with
> no problems and nothing different except for hardware.
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&
> lang
> =english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface:
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&
lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

__

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. 
Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do 
not necessarily represent those of Silversands.

If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support 
Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.silversands.co.uk  


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Microsoft Critical Updates

[Randal, Phil]

Microsoft recommends that critical updates should be applied within 1 day
(at most 2 weeks) [1]

Cheers,

Phil

[1] Microsoft Guide to Security Patch Management, Version 1.1, July 3, 2003
page 49


-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 July 2003 13:33
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Microsoft Critical Updates
> 
> 
> Just wondering how often you guys do Critical Updates to your servers?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Samantha
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: best linux av?

[Randal, Phil]

Nope, wrong.  Once again you're assuming that all your desktops
are happily protected and working fine, in fact that every
link in the chain is in place and secure.  With viruses you
cannot ensure that.  You have to attack viruses robustly on
ALL fronts, with as few assumptions as possible.

The "it will be OK because or desktop PCs are protected"
approach is a recipe for disaster.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 July 2003 15:50
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> Yes, I see your point, although I'd hope my desktop AV would 
> catch this
> stuff before it reaches the exchange server.
> 
> What I don't like is the burden of a realtime scan on 
> exchange. Perhaps a
> combination of gateway scanning, nightly mailbox scans and 
> realtime desktop
> AV would be sufficient.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:45
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > 
> > Do you really think that the *ONLY* possible way a virus can 
> > get into your Exchange environment is through your SMTP gateway?
> > 
> > Let's say a user uses Outlook to POP an email from their 
> > personal account into their Exchange mailbox, and that email 
> > is infected. Or let's say that a user downloads a file from 
> > the Internet that infects their Exchange mailbox. Now what? 
> > Since you don't have any mailbox-level virus protection, you 
> > have to sit there and watch this thing propagate to all your 
> > users and infect all your mailboxes.
> > 
> > But at least your gateway will clean it before it sends it 
> > out to your customers.
> > 
> > Jason
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:22 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > 
> > > why?
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:21
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It is absolutely essential that you have virus 
> protection on your 
> > > > Exchange servers, over and above whatever gateway virus 
> > protection 
> > > > you might be running.
> > > >
> > > > Jason
> > > >
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any 
> > > > > difference, apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the
> > > > exchange
> > > > > box and seeing less of that crappy 'retrieving data' 
> dialog in 
> > > > > outlook...
> > > > >
> > > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but
> > > > think that
> > > > > > whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of added
> > > > reassurance
> > > > > > having something like Scanmail on the Exchange box, given
> > > > the file
> > > > > > blocking capabilities and all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Paul Hutchings
> > > > > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > > > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Original
> > > > > > Message-
> > > > > > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > > > Subject: best linux av?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for
> > > > linux with
> > > > > > > postfix as the mta? our trend renewal is coming 
> up and i'm 
> > > > > > > thinking i'd like to remove the CPU burden of AV 
> > scanning from 
> > > > > > > the exchange box and put it on our
> > > > > > > linux relay which also does the spam filtering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > thanks
> > > > > > > dan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > 
> _
> > > > > > > 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 Lis

RE: best linux av?

[Randal, Phil]

For one, email-borneviruses originating from within your organisation
(especially those with recipients within your organisation) will be
trapped that way.  Don't forget that the first thing some of these
pesky viruses do is disable the desktop PC's antivirus software.

Perimeter fence security alone is not a sane security policy.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 July 2003 15:22
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: best linux av?
> 
> 
> why?
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 04 July 2003 15:21
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > 
> > 
> > It is absolutely essential that you have virus protection on 
> > your Exchange servers, over and above whatever gateway virus 
> > protection you might be running.
> > 
> > Jason
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:bounce-exchange- 
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Atkinson, Daniel
> > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:56 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > 
> > > Well, the linux products do file blocking etc so I don't any 
> > > difference, apart from freeing up tons of CPU cycles on the 
> > exchange 
> > > box and seeing less of that crappy 'retrieving data' dialog in 
> > > outlook...
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 14:19
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: best linux av?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm kind of in a similar position, I just can't help but 
> > think that 
> > > > whatever you have at the gateway there's a bit of added 
> > reassurance 
> > > > having something like Scanmail on the Exchange box, given 
> > the file 
> > > > blocking capabilities and all.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > > Paul
> > > > --
> > > > Paul Hutchings
> > > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > > -Original
> > > > Message-
> > > > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: 04 July 2003 13:08
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: best linux av?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > just wondering if anyone has a favourite AV scanner for 
> > linux with 
> > > > > postfix as the mta? our trend renewal is coming up and i'm 
> > > > > thinking i'd like to
> > > > > remove the CPU burden of AV scanning from the exchange box
> > > > > and put it on our
> > > > > linux relay which also does the spam filtering.
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks
> > > > > dan.
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > _
> > > > > List posting FAQ:   
> > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > > > Web 
> > Interface: 
> > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> _
> > > > List posting FAQ:   
> http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > > Web Interface: 
> > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> > > ext_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi- 
> > > bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
> > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Web Interface: 
> > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
> ext_mode=&lang=english
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Web Interface: 
> http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t
ext_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List

RE: Brick level backups

[Randal, Phil]

1: Nobody ever reads them

2: Nobody ever reads them

3: People read the message, and forget to read the disclaimer

4: go to 1

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 June 2003 12:54
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Brick level backups
> 
> 
> You  have one like this for disclaimers. I know the basics 
> why not. I would 
> like to see your reasons of why disclaimers are bad.
> 
> 
> From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: Brick level backups
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 03:19:25 -0700
> 
> I probably should reread this, but thwas my answer to this question
> A year ago - plus an added point.
> 
> Why not to do Brick Level Backups:
> 
> 1) They take a lng time. At my last position, the priv.edb on
> several Exchange servers was huge with several mailboxes exceeding
> 2GB. Backup windows of 'July' is not acceptible nor necessary.
> 
> 2) Brick Level break SIS in the process. At a previous employer we
> had an SIS ratio of 4 (lots of little daily cash spreadsheets and the
> like getting sent to DL's). This means that a BLB backup uses as much
> as 4 times the total tape. Now I need an autoloader to take care of
> the boxes of tapes required each night.
> 
> 3) You can't perform a full server restore to point of failure with
> brick level backups. You have to actually perform additional full
> online backups as well to allow for full disaster recovery. More
> tapes. More time. More money.
> 
> 4) A restore of several mailboxes from BLB's will cause the store to
> grow because of no SIS. If my SIS ratio is 2 and some disaster leaves
> me with only brick-level, my restore will double the size of the priv.
> 
> 5) The redundant backups for brick level lower the overall performance
> of your exchange server as backups compete with users for CPU cycles
> and disk reads. It is also additional and unnecessary wear and tear
> on tape drives.
> 
> 6) Brick Level Backups do not backup items in deleted item retention.
> As my users (for email anyway) have always been of the educated
> variety, they know and use deleted item recovery as needed.
> 
> 7) A restore of a mailbox is seldom needed. (Probably the only
> instance is inadvertant deletion by an administrator in Exchange5.5)
> With deleted item retention set to a reasonable 30 days or so, and
> with deleted mailboxes retained in Exchange2000, brick level backups
> fall in the category of a waste of time and resources.
> 
> 8) Backups should not be a helpdesk support option. They are a
> disaster recovery requirement. With all that tape and time, the
> convenience of having someone restore my mailbox is so simple I can be
> more careless with my email. I can always get my info restored.  The
> Potential for user complacency because we can always restore uses
> Valuable IT time and resources.
> 
> 9) Yes, it's true. For me, I have only done this using ArcServeIT.
> Because of comments here in this and other forums, CA took the
> Exchange agent back to the lab and did some more fixing on it. For me
> it was too little too late. Basically, BLB's are not perfect. Data
> is not perfectly recreated through the restore process. Problems
> included header info missing, digitally signed emails corrupt,
> attachments missing.
> 
> 10) Many, many more reputable and experienced people have shared their
> horror stories over and over in this and other forums and newsgroups.
> So much so that I was relieved to learn in 1998 that it wasn't just me
> that felt this way. The people that have expressed this opinion I
> hold in high regard and certainly owe it to myself to try to
> understand why the concensus is for or against something.
> 
> 11) Microsoft provides the utility ExMerge which can be used to backup
> a single mailbox to .pst if necessary. I use this as the last step
> before deleting a users mailbox after (s)he have left the company. It
> is a simplified, granular alternative for certain circumstances.
> 
> 12) Exchange2003 allows for a disaster recovery storage group to allow
> Production restores without a recovery server.
> 
> The above may not all apply to you.
> 
> Would you like to see the list against the use of 'confidentiality
> disclaimers'?
> 
> William
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Lloyd
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:58 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> Hi guys,
> I just wanted to know why are brick level backups a bad idea. 
> I know why pst
> files are.
> I can only imagine is that they take forever to complete, and 
> not always all
> of them.
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed before but i do need some 
> reasoning for my
> bosses.
> 
> I know Ed hate em
> 
> 
> Thnks
> 

RE: Open Relay Help

[Randal, Phil]

Just what I needed, thanks!

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 May 2003 17:44
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> 
> 
> Sooner or later I need to start using these guys:
> http://www.rfc-ignorant.com/policy-dsn.php
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 11:10 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > 
> > 
> > On the subject of emails from "<>", RFC2821 says your mailer 
> > must accept them.  It neededn't do anything with them, though.
> > 
> > There's a surprisingly large number of misconfigured mailers 
> > which bounce them, alas.
> > 
> > Phil
> > 
> > -
> > Phil Randal
> > Network Engineer
> > Herefordshire Council
> > Hereford, UK 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:58
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If it's originator is <> they're NDRs and the likes - they
> > > can be safely
> > > deleted.
> > > 
> > > You might want to keep an eye on http://www.openrbl.org to
> > > make sure you
> > > don't creep onto more DNSBLs as people receive stuff that may 
> > > have been sent
> > > through your server and report it to Spamcop and the likes.
> > > 
> > > Some lists you'll be able to get removed from, some you're
> > > stuck on simply
> > > for being with QWest.
> > > 
> > > regards,
> > > Paul
> > > --
> > > Paul Hutchings
> > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Taylor, Skip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:52
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I saw about 50 or so.  I'm still getting items in the queue
> > > > with a blank
> > > > originator.  Is this to be expected?  What happens to 
> these items?
> > > > 
> > > > Skip Taylor, MCSE
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > Jordan, Jones, and Goulding
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:46 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussion
> > > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Nope, rejects relay attempts using sam spade.
> > > > 
> > > > If you've not already done so check your outbound queue - you
> > > > don't want to
> > > > find there's 10,000 spams in there :-)
> > > > 
> > > > regards,
> > > > Paul
> > > > --
> > > > Paul Hutchings
> > > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378 
> > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Taylor, Skip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:44
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I unchecked "Hosts and clients connecting to these internal
> > > > > addresses" and
> > > > > restarted the IMS.  Still relaying?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Skip Taylor, MCSE
> > > > > Network Administrator
> > > > > Jordan, Jones, and Goulding
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > Sent: Thursday

RE: Open Relay Help

[Randal, Phil]

On the subject of emails from "<>", RFC2821 says your mailer must
accept them.  It neededn't do anything with them, though.

There's a surprisingly large number of misconfigured mailers
which bounce them, alas.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 May 2003 15:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> 
> 
> If it's originator is <> they're NDRs and the likes - they 
> can be safely
> deleted.
> 
> You might want to keep an eye on http://www.openrbl.org to 
> make sure you
> don't creep onto more DNSBLs as people receive stuff that may 
> have been sent
> through your server and report it to Spamcop and the likes.
> 
> Some lists you'll be able to get removed from, some you're 
> stuck on simply
> for being with QWest.
> 
> regards,
> Paul
> --
> Paul Hutchings
> Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Taylor, Skip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:52
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > 
> > 
> > I saw about 50 or so.  I'm still getting items in the queue 
> > with a blank
> > originator.  Is this to be expected?  What happens to these items?
> > 
> > Skip Taylor, MCSE
> > Network Administrator
> > Jordan, Jones, and Goulding
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:46 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussion
> > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > 
> > 
> > Nope, rejects relay attempts using sam spade.
> > 
> > If you've not already done so check your outbound queue - you 
> > don't want to
> > find there's 10,000 spams in there :-)
> > 
> > regards,
> > Paul
> > --
> > Paul Hutchings
> > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Taylor, Skip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:44
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I unchecked "Hosts and clients connecting to these internal 
> > > addresses" and
> > > restarted the IMS.  Still relaying?
> > > 
> > > Skip Taylor, MCSE
> > > Network Administrator
> > > Jordan, Jones, and Goulding
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:42 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussion
> > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think the "Hosts and clients connecting to these internal 
> > > addresses" is
> > > your problem - you don't need it ticked (or I should say it 
> > > isn't ticked
> > > here and doesn't affect inbound email).
> > > 
> > > regards,
> > > Paul
> > > --
> > > Paul Hutchings
> > > Network Administrator, MIRA Ltd.
> > > Tel: 024 7635 5378, Fax: 024 7635 8378
> > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Taylor, Skip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: 29 May 2003 15:35
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On the Routing tab "Reroute incoming SMTP mail (required for 
> > > > POP3/IMAP4
> > > > support)is checked.
> > > > In the field below Sent to: has our domain of jjg.com and 
> > > Route to: is
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The Routing Restrictions are as follows:
> > > > Hosts and clients that successfully authenticate is not checked.
> > > > Host and clients with these IP addresses is checked and 
> > > > populated with 3
> > > > internal addresses for Canon Image Runner copiers that can 
> > > send email.
> > > > Hosts and clients connecting to these internal addresses is 
> > > > checked with the
> > > > Internal IP address of our exchange server.
> > > > Specify the hosts and clients that can NEVER route mail 
> is empty.
> > > > 
> > > > Skip Taylor, MCSE
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > Jordan, Jones, and Goulding
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:29 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussion
> > > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Still open... What's that tab say now exactly?
> > > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Taylor, Skip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > > > Posted At: Thursday, May 29, 2003 9:23 AM
> > > > Posted To: swynk
> > > > Conversation: Open Relay Help
> > > > Subject: RE: Open Relay Help
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I'm sure I did but restarted once more to make sure.  Can you 
> > > > try again?
> > > > 
> > > > Skip Taylor, MCSE
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > Jordan, Jones, and Goulding
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 

RE: JScript

[Randal, Phil]

More to the point, JScript is DANGEROUS!

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/?url=/technet/security/bulletin/MS
03-008.asp

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 March 2003 12:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: JScript
> 
> 
> Merrell Orbit Mocs work well for me.
> 
> Jscript is dead. ECMAScript is the correct term, not that 
> anyone uses that
> term. Want a non-MS centric programming book, go to O'Reilly:
> http://scripting.oreilly.com/
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:28 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: JScript
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   Would someone please recomend a nice brand of casual shoe?  
> > Something nicer that running shoes, but comfortable to walk 
> > extended distance in. Size 9 1/2 men's medium
> > 
> > 
> > The Geek Q wrote:
> > > How so . . . Exchange admins that don't use scripts to automate 
> > > procedures in there environment. I find that hard to believe.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >> From: "Woodruff, Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Subject: RE: JScript
> > >> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:16:58 -0500
> > >> 
> > >> I think you signed up for the wrong list...
> > >> 
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: The Geek Q [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 2:15 PM
> > >> To: Exchange Discussions
> > >> Subject: RE: JScript
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> I would like a recommendation on a book for a beginner to learn 
> > >> JavaScript.
> > >> 
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> - John Q Jr.
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> _
> > >> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
> > >> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> _
> > >> List posting FAQ:   
> http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > >> 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]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _
> > > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* 
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > > 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: Files zipped when sent out

[Randal, Phil]

NDA with fries?  Yummy!

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 February 2003 15:21
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Files zipped when sent out
> 
> 
> But we are not allowed to discuss what we ate. NDA and everything... 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 7:16 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> We had the same thing as you silly.
> 
> On 2/21/03 9:04, "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> You could at least tell us what you had for lunch. 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chris Scharff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:01 AM 
> Subject: Re: Files zipped when sent out 
> 
> 
> > I've used it for my own messages in the past and understand 
> they have a 
> > number of very large customers who are using it and liking 
> it. Had lunch 
> > with the owner of the company a couple of weeks ago and 
> talked about their
> 
> > next version . 
> > 
> > On 2/21/03 8:01, "Dave Vantine" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I just took a look at this and it looks pretty good. It 
> would seem like it
> 
> > could save considerable space in the message store and 
> create a very good 
> > way to organize attachments via is search capabilities. 
> > 
> > Anyone using it and have any pro's/con's 
> > 
> > Thanks 
> > -Dave Vantine 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:14 AM 
> > To: Exchange Discussions 
> > Subject: Re: Files zipped when sent out 
> > 
> > 
> > ZipOut http://www.microeye.com 
> > 
> > On 2/20/03 22:57, "Carine Lim, Sr.SystEng, SCSM/NSB" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Everyone, 
> > 
> > May I know which 3rd party software (that works well with 
> Exchange) which 
> > will automatically zip files when sent out.! 
> > 
> > Thank you 
> > 
> > Cheers! 
> > 
> > Carine 
> > 
> > 
> **
> ** 
> > Safeguard your company with cost-effective disaster recovery 
> > services. Find out more at  http://www.scs.com.my/proService9.asp 
> > or contact us at 03 - 79565800 
> > 
> **
> ** 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _ 
> > 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/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.c

RE: Opinions on the best message format.

[Randal, Phil]

Plain text.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Darrin J. Carter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 January 2003 16:03
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Opinions on the best message format.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I wanted to get the groups opinion on the best message format 
> to use in
> Outlook 98.  
> 
> Text/HTML or RTF. 
> 
> Any pros or cons regarding the types would be most helpful.
> 
> The backend is Exchange 2000 with SP3.
> 
> Thanks,
> Darrin
> 
> _
> 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: Postmaster reply address

[Randal, Phil]

Wrong!

See http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html section 4.5.1.

postmaster is required.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Meunier [mailto:Tom.Meunier@;courts.state.tx.us]
> Sent: 06 November 2002 23:15
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Postmaster reply address
> 
> 
> No. root@, postmaster@, hostmaster@, abuse@, etc. are just "strongly
> suggested" iirc.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Drew Nicholson [mailto:DNicholson@;rapidapp.com] 
> > Posted At: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:05 AM
> > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> > Conversation: Postmaster reply address
> > Subject: RE: Postmaster reply address
> > 
> > 
> > I don't know if you _can_ change it, but you shouldn't.  
> > Isn't there an RFC that says a system has to have to have 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
> > 
> > Anyway, just configure your profile (or another one) to look 
> > at that mailbox.
> > 
> > Drew Nicholson
> > Technical Writer
> > Network Engineer
> > LAN Manager
> > RapidApp
> > 312-372-7188 (work)
> > 312-543-0008 (cell)
> > Born To Edit
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:MWoodruff@;inchord.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:20 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Postmaster reply address
> > 
> > 
> > Exchange2k SP3
> > 
> > 
> > I am having trouble trying to figure out how to change the
> > postmaster reply address on NDRs sent to internet users.  Is it
> > possible?
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > 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]
> 

_
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: Mail Relaying Originator <>

[Randal, Phil]

RFC2821 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2821.html) section 6.1.

Such mails can be swallowed or ignored, but they should never be
bounced.

You can check your mail server's compliance here:

  http://vger.kernel.org/mxverify.html

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
> Sent: 06 November 2002 17:20
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail Relaying Originator <>
> 
> 
> That's fine. Those are NDRs and probably shouldn't be blocked.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> Atlanta, GA
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dave Morrow [mailto:David.Morrow@;autodata.net] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:28 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Mail Relaying Originator <>
> > 
> > 
> > I recently setup my MS Exchange server such that only people 
> > connecting from
> > a specific set of IP addresses (my company's IP range) and 
> > connections to an
> > internal IP address are allowed to relay mail.  
> > 
> > After doing so, I am still noticing mail in the IMC queue 
> that has an
> > originator of <>
> > 
> > 
> > David Morrow
> > Network Administrator
> > Autodata Solutions Company
> > Ph: (519) 951-6067 Fax: (519) 451-6615
> > mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > "Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency 
> > on my part."
> > 
> > This message has originated from Autodata Solutions Company.  
> > The attached
> > material is the Confidential and Proprietary Information of Autodata
> > Solutions Company. This email and any files transmitted with it are
> > confidential and intended solely for the use of the 
> > individual or entity to
> > whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in 
> > error please
> > delete this message and notify the Autodata system administrator at
> > [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]
> 

_
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: POLL

[Randal, Phil]

That's one use for all your junk emails!

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Exchange.ListServe
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 September 2002 14:08
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: POLL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quorn, although I feed my rats spam, but they tend to bite me 
> when I do this. 

_
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: Revisiting offline defrag question

[Randal, Phil]

You should use Mailbox Manager.  If users don't set outlook 
Options/Other Empty the Deleted Items Fold upon Exiting your
Private IS will fill up with deleted items.

Mailbox Manager is in SP4 ENG\server\support\mbmngr\setup\i386.

Works a treat here.  Once you've sorted out where all that IS
space is going, you need to set deleted items retention on:

  http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_appxb.htm

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 13 September 2002 14:21
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Revisiting offline defrag question
> 
> 
> I dont know what mailbox manager is so I guess Im not using 
> it, also I dont
> have any deleted items retension set up.
> 
> RGDS
> Rich
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 9:11 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Revisiting offline defrag question
> 
> 
> The 1221 report on your ISPRIV is what counts, as that's
> the amount of whitespace in the database.
> 
> Are you running Mailbox Manager on the server?
> 
> We use it to purge old "Deleted Items" and "Journal" entries,
> and it helps a lot.  Configuring Outlook / office not to
> journal helps too, if you don't need it.
> 
> What sort of deleted item retention period do you have?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 13 September 2002 14:05
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Revisiting offline defrag question
> > 
> > 
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > 
> > I would like to ask everyone's suggestions, I 
> > asked about
> > offline defrag a couple days ago and many of you were very 
> > helpful.  Thanks
> > for all your great information.  I have exchange 5.5 sp4 
> > running on windows
> > nt srv sp6a and my secondary partition where the exchange 
> database is
> > located is approximately 12.9gig in total size.  I have 1.98 
> > gigs of space
> > left on this drive and it is diminishing very quickly about 
> > 200mb a week.
> > The priv.edb file is 8,791,048 in size and the pub.edb is 
> > 946,184 in size.
> > Recently I have archived alot of emails from peoples 
> > mailboxes, a few gigs
> > at least.  Also in the past other people have left our 
> > company and I deleted
> > their mailboxes which were pretty big usually close to 1 gig 
> > in size.  Since
> > I have done alot of deleting I haven't really noticed any 
> > space on this
> > secondary partition freed up.  So last night I archived about 
> > 1.5gigs of
> > email and came in today and noticed that I haven't gained any 
> > space back on
> > this partition.  In the event viewer it shows this about my 
> > online defrag
> > report.  
> > 
> > The database has 53 megabytes of free space after online 
> > defragment has
> > terminated event 1221.  
> > 
> > Event 1207: cleanup of items past retention date for Item 
> Recovery is
> > complete
> > Start: 20843 items; 445797 Kbytes
> > end: 20742 items; 445487 Kbytes
> > 
> > From the info above would anyone consider doing an offline 
> > defragment of the
> > exchange database?  I have never done this before and would 
> like your
> > suggestions, thanks very much for your time.
> > 
> > RGDS
> > Rich
> > 
> > _
> > 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: Revisiting offline defrag question

[Randal, Phil]

The 1221 report on your ISPRIV is what counts, as that's
the amount of whitespace in the database.

Are you running Mailbox Manager on the server?

We use it to purge old "Deleted Items" and "Journal" entries,
and it helps a lot.  Configuring Outlook / office not to
journal helps too, if you don't need it.

What sort of deleted item retention period do you have?

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 13 September 2002 14:05
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Revisiting offline defrag question
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> 
>   I would like to ask everyone's suggestions, I 
> asked about
> offline defrag a couple days ago and many of you were very 
> helpful.  Thanks
> for all your great information.  I have exchange 5.5 sp4 
> running on windows
> nt srv sp6a and my secondary partition where the exchange database is
> located is approximately 12.9gig in total size.  I have 1.98 
> gigs of space
> left on this drive and it is diminishing very quickly about 
> 200mb a week.
> The priv.edb file is 8,791,048 in size and the pub.edb is 
> 946,184 in size.
> Recently I have archived alot of emails from peoples 
> mailboxes, a few gigs
> at least.  Also in the past other people have left our 
> company and I deleted
> their mailboxes which were pretty big usually close to 1 gig 
> in size.  Since
> I have done alot of deleting I haven't really noticed any 
> space on this
> secondary partition freed up.  So last night I archived about 
> 1.5gigs of
> email and came in today and noticed that I haven't gained any 
> space back on
> this partition.  In the event viewer it shows this about my 
> online defrag
> report.  
> 
> The database has 53 megabytes of free space after online 
> defragment has
> terminated event 1221.  
> 
> Event 1207: cleanup of items past retention date for Item Recovery is
> complete
> Start: 20843 items; 445797 Kbytes
> end: 20742 items; 445487 Kbytes
> 
> From the info above would anyone consider doing an offline 
> defragment of the
> exchange database?  I have never done this before and would like your
> suggestions, thanks very much for your time.
> 
> RGDS
> Rich
> 
> _
> 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: Latest NAV for Exchange 5.5 ??

[Randal, Phil]

Do a KB search for OpenRetryDelay.  It might solve
your problem.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Alverson, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 September 2002 14:37
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Latest NAV for Exchange 5.5 ??
> 
> 
> I am running NAVMSE version 2.17 build 75 on my exchange 5.5 
> server.  Are
> there any newer versions available for exchange 5.5?  I have 
> background
> scanning enabled (and combo mode) and still get errors (from 
> outlook) when
> sending emails with attachments.  Outlook tells me the 
> delivery failed, and
> the message seems to disappear for a while (does not even 
> show up in sent
> items) but after a few minutes it does get delivered OK (and 
> then shows up
> in sent items).  I probably just need a faster server as it seems that
> outlook is timing out while the server struggles to keep up 
> with scanning.
> 
> 
> 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: Tracing Computers making repeated Logon Requests

[Randal, Phil]

ping workstation_name ???

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Charles Carerros [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 September 2002 14:19
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: OT: Tracing Computers making repeated Logon Requests
> 
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> This is really off topic, but I am having problems find a solution.  
> 
> There are a number of workstations that are repeatedly trying 
> to hack my
> admin password on two of my subnets.  I can see when they try their
> password attempts and they are using basic Microsoft Authentication.
> However the Event Viewer only gives me the workstation name (and the
> domain/work group name which is the same as the workstation 
> name).  Does
> anyone have any suggestions as to how I could pin down an IP 
> address.  
> 
> The nature of these attempts (and timing) could point out that some
> student either has been hacked or is purposely running these. 
>  As such,
> if I can discern an IP address I can put an end to them.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chuck
> 
> _
> 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: spoolss.dll

[Randal, Phil]

A google search for SPOOLSS.DLL found it in a few seconds.

Sighs...

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Earl, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 22 August 2002 12:15
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: OT: spoolss.dll
> 
> 
> Hello the list,
> 
> I am unfortunate enough to be responsible for a network full 
> of old Windows
> 95/98 machines and wondered if anyone out there with Windows 
> ME could send
> me a copy of the SPOOLSS.DLL version 4.90.0.3000 please?
> My working life seems to be spent fiddling around with 
> printer settings and
> I've heard that this updated DLL functions properly and solves Spool32
> invalid page faults.
> It would be much appreciated if anyone can help.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dan.
> 
> 
> This email and all attachments it may contain is confidential 
> and intended
> solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. 
> Any views or
> opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not 
> necessarily
> represent those of Heal's. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, be advised
> that you have received this email in error and that any use, 
> dissemination,
> printing, forwarding or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
> 
> Please contact the sender if you have received this email in error.
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 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: Any new hotfixes for Exchange 5.5

[Randal, Phil]

Oh, just run Exchange Optimizer and force it to use no more than 256MB of
RAM.

Then get the boss to explain to all the users why it is running slower.

Phil ;-)

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 August 2002 16:15
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Any new hotfixes for Exchange 5.5
> 
> 
> Karon, if based solely on the fact that your Exchange 
> server's store.exe
> process is using 75% or more of the available memory this 
> systems manager
> thinks that the server will die within 60 days he is proof 
> positive that
> certifications alone don't mean squat. 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 4:28 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Any new hotfixes for Exchange 5.5
> > 
> > My store.exe is using 1.06gb, just like it has for the last 
> year and a
> > half, with zero unscheduled downtime.  Ask your manager to call my
> > manager so we can schedule some downtime for it to break.  
> Because it
> > obviously isn't as smart as your manager, since it doesn't know it's
> > supposed to.  But then, my server doesn't have any certs 
> and neither do
> > I.
> > 
> > -tom
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Karon Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Posted At: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 03:29 PM
> > > Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> > > Conversation: Any new hotfixes for Exchange 5.5
> > > Subject: RE: Any new hotfixes for Exchange 5.5
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know.  Everything is running fine on that server.  We
> > > occassionally have problems backing it up and occassionally
> > > it's slow and we have to reboot it but I blame all of that on
> > > Backup Exec.  This server has a 1gb of ram and the store.exe
> > > uses 75% or more of that and according to this new Sys Mgr
> > > who has every certification they make, that's NOT normal.
> > > I've been asked to totall re-vamp this server because he's
> > > alarmed upper management that it's going to die in 60 days if
> > > we don't do something.  He said that there are new patches or
> > > hotfixes which I've been searching for but haven't found 
> anything yet.
> 
> 
> _
> 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: Question regarding "ñ" and other characters

[Randal, Phil]

I'm too busy to look, but is this clarified in RFC 2821/2822?

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 25 July 2002 18:11
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Question regarding "ñ" and other characters
> 
> 
> Just to clarify RFC821 versus RFC822 
> 
> It is true that RFC821 DOES NOT allow this character in the 
> destination headers. However, RFC822 DOES allow this 
> character. In fact there are follow-on RFCs that describe 
> Quoted-Printable for the 822 headers. So, you should be able 
> to have the descriptive name match even though the underlying 
> routing name does not.
> 
> Mark
>   Plus Pack for OWA 
>   SecureLogoff for OWA
>   http://www.messageware.net
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David S. Michel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:05 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Question regarding "ñ" and other characters
> 
> 
>   - Exchange 2000 and Win2k w/ English installations
> We have a user who wants the "ñ" in his name to also be in his email
> address instead of a plain old "n".  I know from RFC821 that 
> this is not a
> valid character in an email address and therefore can't be used in
> Exchange 2000 since it conforms to the RFC.  Furthermore, if 
> you attempt
> to send to an email address with an ñ I get an NDR from my 
> own categorizer
> for the same reason.  However, this user insists that at his 
> last firm his
> actual email address was [EMAIL PROTECTED] but that anyone and everyone
> could email him to user_ñ@test.com and it would be 
> "converted" and he'd
> get the email.  His old firm used Exchange 5.0 (with a spanish
> installation) which was before my time but since 5.0 "loosely followed
> RFC's" was it possible to do what he's saying happened from either
> Exchange or the OS installation?  I've called PSS and all 
> they said was
> that it's not possible now but they could not answer if it 
> was possible at
> one time.  They and I agree that probably what actually 
> happened was that
> the user's display name had the ñ and that's what people 
> actually thought
> they were sending to.  This is actually a big deal to 
> management so any
> help would be appreciated.  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 5.0 vs. Sybari

[Randal, Phil]

>From my experience, Groupshield 5 is a much better product than
its predecessors.  Have you had experience of Groupshield 5,
Missy?

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 July 2002 23:26
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Groupshield 5.0 vs. Sybari
> 
> 
> groupshield sucks.  sybari doesn't.  simple.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Dietz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:06 PM
> Subject: Groupshield 5.0 vs. Sybari
> 
> 
> I see one big differnce in the apps on paper. Sybari 
> utilizies 4 engines
> vs. the 1 engine Groupshield utilizies.
> 
> Does anyone have real world exp. on which of these products 
> would fit an
> Exchange 2K site with only one server in that site and 500 
> mailboxes on
> that  server.
> 
> 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: Does anyone have a site that you can test to see if your exch ange is receiving outside mail?

[Randal, Phil]

http://vger.kernel.org/mxverify.html is a good one and checks some 
RFC compliance issues too.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffrey A. Beckham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 July 2002 15:13
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Does anyone have a site that you can test to see if your
> exchange is receiving outside mail?
> 
> 
> http://www.checkdns.net
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: James Casstevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Posted At: Friday, June 28, 2002 6:47 PM
> Posted To: Exchange Discussion List
> Conversation: Does anyone have a site that you can test to see if your
> exchange is receiving outside mail?
> Subject: Does anyone have a site that you can test to see if your
> exchange is receiving outside mail?
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] used to work, however it does not anymore.  I was
> wondering if anyone else on the list had any additional sites 
> that they
> use
> to determine if they are receiving outside mail.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> James J. Casstevens
> Network Administrator
> Napa Valley Unified School District
> 
> _
> 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: Catch All...

[Randal, Phil]

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Rotman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 27 June 2002 18:13
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Catch All...

... stuff snipped
 
> By-the-way it further defines that an NDR should never be 
> sent in response to a status report (empty RFC821 From 
> address) to avoid potential message loops.

I had a bounce from one of these from the ultimate broken
mailer yesterday.

Not only bouncing my delivery notification messages (which
RFC 2821 says must be accepted), but also bouncing my
email to postmaster@... (unknown recipient).

I guess that takes dumbing down a bit too far :)

Phil
 
> Mark

_
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: Catch All...

[Randal, Phil]

from rfc2821

"6.1 Reliable Delivery and Replies by Email

   When the receiver-SMTP accepts a piece of mail (by sending a "250 OK"
   message in response to DATA), it is accepting responsibility for
   delivering or relaying the message.  It must take this responsibility
   seriously.  It MUST NOT lose the message for frivolous reasons, such
   as because the host later crashes or because of a predictable
   resource shortage.

   If there is a delivery failure after acceptance of a message, the
   receiver-SMTP MUST formulate and mail a notification message.  This
   notification MUST be sent using a null ("<>") reverse path in the
   envelope.  The recipient of this notification MUST be the address
   from the envelope return path (or the Return-Path: line).  However,
   if this address is null ("<>"), the receiver-SMTP MUST NOT send a
   notification."

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 27 June 2002 17:51
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Catch All...
> 
> 
> http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/ateQuestionNResponse/0,289
> 625,sid1_c
> id468033_tax285117,00.html This one according to Scott.
> 
> --Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
> http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:37 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Catch All...
> 
> 
> Please post the relevant section of the RFC that the request "breaks".
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> hp Services
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kevin Miller
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:27 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Catch All...
> 
> 
> Yes you can but it breaks the RFCS. And why would you want to? Do 
> 
> Catchall mailbox event sink for Exchange2000: 
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q32402
1&SD=MSKB&

--Kevinm KMAP-SR, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here!


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Gary Duckman
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 6:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Catch All...


Hi Guys,

I have not been on the list for over a year so excuse me if I have
missed the threads on this

Can I re-route all inbound unknown recipient mail to a single mailbox in
Exchange 2000? (I known how to do it in 5.5)

At the moment it goes into the badmail directory.

This is for people who mispell addresses etc.


Cheers,


Gary

_
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: MS02-028

[Randal, Phil]

Time to apply the IIS lockdown tool, methinks :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 25 June 2002 16:21
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: MS02-028
> 
> 
> to tell you the truth..I'm not familiar with HTR
> I will have to look it up..
 

_
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: Installing GroupShield Exchange 4.5

[Randal, Phil]

Groupshield 4.5 has been superseded by Groupshield 5.  If you must use
McAfee software, I'd skip GS 4.5 altogether and go straight to GS 5.0.

You can get it from here

 http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/naicommon/download/upgrade/login.asp

(requires your NAI support grant number).

Otherwise you'll need GS 4.5SP1 plus Hotfix 7 (a nightmare to install).
Then increase OpenRetryDelay to 0x800 or more (google will find you the
Knowledgebase article).

Then pray :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Untung Tanamal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June 2002 21:59
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 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: Alternative Exchange Server Clients

[Randal, Phil]

Precisely because they do.  Except they don't work the same.

MS's virus propagation engine has been removed :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Butler (Mailing Lists) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June 2002 15:55
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Alternative Exchange Server Clients
> 
> 
> Indeed -- I always find it interesting that while Linux 
> advocates are often
> the loudest anti-Microsoft lobbyists, their products continue 
> to look more
> and more like the Microsoft products they hate.  From a purely user
> standpoint, I would think that only hurts their cause  
> why would a user
> want to change if the products look and work exactly the same?
 

_
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: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY

[Randal, Phil]

I work on the assumption that if he's using McAfee software he
has no choice in the matter :-(

Therefore, we start with what he's got, patch and configure it
appropriately, and see what happens.

I have GS4.5 HF7 working very happily on two Exchange 5.5 servers
here without letting viruses in.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June 2002 14:44
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> 
> Well, one could put a "Real" AV solution in place versus some 
> piece of shite
> SW that does nothing useful, but cause stress
> 
> Quit yer whinin...  We get enough of that from Precht!
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:54 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> 
> As one of Microsoft's patented Virus propagation engines?
> 
> Yup, very helpful.
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 21 June 2002 14:15
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> > 
> > 
> > I found his response very helpful.  If one removes the "BAS"
> > (c) from their
> > server, it's much more likely to function as advertised...
> 
> _
> 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: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY

[Randal, Phil]

4.5.572.182 is Hotfix 7, so you don't seem to have it.

Go to www.mcafeeb2b.com and download it (it's a tricky manual
install, alas, and you'll need your grant number).  Also, you'll
need to set OpenRetryDelay to a suitably high value (we use 0x800
here without problems). 

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q264731

Oh, and make sure VirusScan isn't trying to scan your exchange
database directories.  Not a good idea.

Cheers,

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Aristotle Zoulas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June 2002 14:30
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> 
> We are running 4.5.572.171
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:23 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> What a helpful response...
> 
> This might be more helpful.
> 
> What versions of Virusscan & Groupshield?
> 
> If GS 4.5, is hotfix 7 applied?
> 
> I'd recommend upgrading to GS 5.0 if you're stuck with McAfee 
> (we are :-( )
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 21 June 2002 14:11
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> > 
> > 
> > Friggin Remove them and find out.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Aristotle Zoulas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:00 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We are running Exchange 5.5 with the latest service packs and 
> > updates. Our
> > message store consumes more and more memory until is it shut down by
> > Exchange. This just started happening recently. When it 
> > happens, all users
> > are prevented from connecting via Windows Outlook Client.
> > 
> > 
> > What could cause something like this? We are running MacAfee 
> > Virus scan and
> > GroupShield on this machine. Could that have any effect?
> > 
> > 
> > TIA 
> > 
> > _
> > 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]
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > The information contained in this email message is privileged 
> > and confidential information intended only for the use of the 
> > individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If the reader 
> > of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
> > notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this 
> > message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
> > email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler 
> > Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or 
> > email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  
> Thank you.
> > 
> > ==
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > 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: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY

[Randal, Phil]

As one of Microsoft's patented Virus propagation engines?

Yup, very helpful.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June 2002 14:15
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> 
> I found his response very helpful.  If one removes the "BAS" 
> (c) from their
> server, it's much more likely to function as advertised...

_
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: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY

[Randal, Phil]

What a helpful response...

This might be more helpful.

What versions of Virusscan & Groupshield?

If GS 4.5, is hotfix 7 applied?

I'd recommend upgrading to GS 5.0 if you're stuck with McAfee (we are :-( )

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 June 2002 14:11
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> 
> Friggin Remove them and find out.
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Aristotle Zoulas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 9:00 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: STORE.EXE--CONSUMING TOO MUCH MEMORY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are running Exchange 5.5 with the latest service packs and 
> updates. Our
> message store consumes more and more memory until is it shut down by
> Exchange. This just started happening recently. When it 
> happens, all users
> are prevented from connecting via Windows Outlook Client.
> 
> 
> What could cause something like this? We are running MacAfee 
> Virus scan and
> GroupShield on this machine. Could that have any effect?
> 
> 
> TIA 
> 
> _
> 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]
> 
> --
> 
> The information contained in this email message is privileged 
> and confidential information intended only for the use of the 
> individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If the reader 
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this 
> message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
> email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler 
> Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or 
> email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message.  Thank you.
> 
> ==
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 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: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems

[Randal, Phil]

Yes, you did!

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 May 2002 15:41
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> 
> 
> Did I read this right? FREE?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 10:17 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> 
> 
> Don't forget David Harris's Mercury/32 from http://www.pmail.gen.nz
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 10 May 2002 14:39
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> > 
> > 
> > Rockliffe MailSite (http://www.rockliffe.com)
> > 
> > IPSwitch Imail (http://www.ipswitch.com)
> > 
> > Gordano NTMail (http://www.gordano.com)
> > 
> > Out of these 3, my choice would be Rockliffe Mailsite. It 
> > allows to create
> > custom routes, allows ETRN, pretty strong as a relay.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:17 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> > 
> > 
> > stalker cgate pro
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:03 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> > 
> > 
> > Anyone have any preferences for mail exchangers which run on 
> > the Windows NT
> > 4.x platform?
> > 
> > I am aware of XMail, but woould like some other options if 
> > you have them.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Nate Couch
> > EDS Messaging
> > 
> > _
> > 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/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems

[Randal, Phil]

Don't forget David Harris's Mercury/32 from http://www.pmail.gen.nz

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 May 2002 14:39
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> 
> 
> Rockliffe MailSite (http://www.rockliffe.com)
> 
> IPSwitch Imail (http://www.ipswitch.com)
> 
> Gordano NTMail (http://www.gordano.com)
> 
> Out of these 3, my choice would be Rockliffe Mailsite. It 
> allows to create
> custom routes, allows ETRN, pretty strong as a relay.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> 
> 
> stalker cgate pro
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 2:03 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Mail Exchangers for NT based systems
> 
> 
> Anyone have any preferences for mail exchangers which run on 
> the Windows NT
> 4.x platform?
> 
> I am aware of XMail, but woould like some other options if 
> you have them.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Nate Couch
> EDS Messaging
> 
> _
> 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: Cerification question

[Randal, Phil]

Go on, tell  us, and we can put it to the test :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 02 May 2002 16:05
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Cerification question
> 
> 
> That is so not fair.  I doubt that my three favorite movies 
> would endear
> me to a group of men, who tend to be a bit more, shall we say,
> neandrathal, in their choices.
> 
> M

_
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

[Randal, Phil]

I wish that they would
Do that to everyone
With dodgy boxes

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 April 2002 15:46
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Haiku Friday
> 
> 
> If I do not patch
> The Army cuts off my pipe
> To the internet 

_
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: ever seen this?

[Randal, Phil]

30 secons with google gave me this:

http://www.madras.fife.sch.uk/maths/descriptive6.html

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 19 March 2002 15:44
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: ever seen this?
> 
> 
> What is the answer to this.  Sorry, off the Exchange subject. 
>  I need to
> solve this:)
> 
> Here is the puzzle:
> 
> Complete the last line:
> 
> 1
> 11
> 21
> 1112
> 3112
> 211213
> 312213
> 212223
> 114213
> 31121314
> 
> 
> _
> 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: Transaction Logs

[Randal, Phil]

That looks fine to me.  If the number of log files keeps
growing and older logs aren't being deleted then you have
problems.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: ExchDiscList [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 19 March 2002 14:47
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Transaction Logs
> 
> 
> Andy,
> 
> These are the files we are seeing. Of note, I ran the backup 
> @ 6:42 am.
> 
> 03/19/2002  06:42a   5,242,880 edb.log
> 03/18/2002  01:46p   5,242,880 edb8.log
> 03/18/2002  03:03p   5,242,880 edb9.log
> 03/19/2002  04:10a   5,242,880 edbA.log
> 03/19/2002  06:42a   5,242,880 edbB.log
> 03/17/2002  08:49p   5,242,880 res1.log
> 03/17/2002  08:49p   5,242,880 res2.log
> 
> I think the res1&2 and edb should always be there, but I was not sure
> about the rest.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> The directory will not be empty. There will always be 4-8 log 
> files left
> after even a full backup. If you have 20 left, then 
> something's not set
> right.
> 
> _
> 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: Transaction Logs

[Randal, Phil]

I've seen this once before after switching from circular
logging.

What I noticed was a discontiguous range of log file
"numbers".

After carefully examining the log file date / timestamps
I deleted the oldest (leaving at least 2 days worth as we
do daily full backups) and rebooted the server (stopping
and restarting the IS service would probably have sufficed).

The next morning the extraneous log files were gone, and
there have been no problems since.

Cheers,

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 19 March 2002 14:32
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Transaction Logs
> 
> 
> The directory will not be empty.  There will always be 4-8 
> log files left
> after even a full backup. If you have 20 left, then 
> something's not set
> right.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: ExchDiscList [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:10 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Transaction Logs
> 
> 
> We have Exchange 5.4 SP4 on Windows 2000.  We have just 
> started disabling
> Circular Logging.
> 
> After doing a backup, it doesn't look like the transaction logs are
> disappearing.  I have tried two different backup products and did full
> online backups.
> 
> Should the mdbdata directory empty after the backup, or does 
> exchange simply
> reuse the existing logs?
>  
> Thanks, 
> Jim 
> 
> _
> 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: testing relay

[Randal, Phil]

Oops, rfc2821...  Slip of the finger and brain...

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 March 2002 17:10
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: testing relay
> 
> 
> Read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html and digest carefully.
> 
> Emails with a "From: <>" header are delivery notification messages.
> RFC2822 says mailers must accept these messages (they can, if I
> recall correctly, do what they like with them).  There are an
> awful lot on non-RFC2822-compliant mail servers out there.
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Lavoie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 March 2002 15:37
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: testing relay
> > 
> > 
> > I followed the Microsoft article on preventing mail relay on 
> > exchange 5.5
> > and went to a couple different sites that check your server 
> > for you to see
> > if relaying is open, BUT. I get outbound mail failure 
> > notifications
> > from email that was not sent out by any of our employees 
> > Reason for
> > error is "message timeout" and I'm unsure if it is a 
> misleading error
> > message. Reason for failure should be that relaying is 
> prohibited? I'm
> > wondering if alas relaying is still possible.
> > The from: address on these messages is invariably <>
> > Anyone have input?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Jay
> > 
> > _
> > 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: testing relay

[Randal, Phil]

Read http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html and digest carefully.

Emails with a "From: <>" header are delivery notification messages.
RFC2822 says mailers must accept these messages (they can, if I
recall correctly, do what they like with them).  There are an
awful lot on non-RFC2822-compliant mail servers out there.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: James Lavoie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 March 2002 15:37
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: testing relay
> 
> 
> I followed the Microsoft article on preventing mail relay on 
> exchange 5.5
> and went to a couple different sites that check your server 
> for you to see
> if relaying is open, BUT. I get outbound mail failure 
> notifications
> from email that was not sent out by any of our employees 
> Reason for
> error is "message timeout" and I'm unsure if it is a misleading error
> message. Reason for failure should be that relaying is prohibited? I'm
> wondering if alas relaying is still possible.
> The from: address on these messages is invariably <>
> Anyone have input?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jay
> 
> _
> 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: Ram upgrade NT4 SP6

[Randal, Phil]

Try running memtest86 from www.memtest86.com on it to
see if it's a hardware problem.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 March 2002 14:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Ram upgrade NT4 SP6
> 
> 
> I havent tried it yet
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 9:16 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Ram upgrade NT4 SP6
> 
> 
> Will it allow you to do an offline backup?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mr Louis Joyce
> Network Support Analyst
> Exchange Administrator
> BT Ignite eSolutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 01 March 2002 14:14
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Ram upgrade NT4 SP6
> 
> 
> It wasn't what they said. Microsoft said it.
> 
> 'As a rule by Microsoft, whenever you apply any new software 
> or Hardware 
> changes, Microsoft recommends-'
> 
> So I would try it. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mr Louis Joyce
> Network Support Analyst
> Exchange Administrator
> BT Ignite eSolutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 01 March 2002 14:16
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Ram upgrade NT4 SP6
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
>   I upgraded the Ram on my server from 512 to 1gig about 
> a week ago. I
> found that after installing the Ram my server would lockup 
> only when the
> backup is running.  So I put all the backups on hold and my 
> server runs
> great. I have backup exec 8.5. I emailed veritas about the 
> problem and this
> is what they suggested: 
> 
> As a rule by Microsoft, whenever you apply any new software 
> or Hardware 
> changes, Microsoft recommends to re-apply Service Pack on top of an 
> existing one.
> 
> Just try reapplying SP6a on top of an existing one which is 
> most likely to 
> be the cause.
> 
> Also, since your Virtual Memory size will be as per your old 
> RAM size. You
> need to reconfigure Virtual Memory size 
> E.g.: try setting it to 600MB 
> 
> You also need to reapply Softpaq which comes with Compaq 
> machines. For 
> further information, please refer the documentation came 
> along with Compaq.
> 
> Awaiting your feedback.
> 
> 
> 
>   Warm Regards,
>   
>   Vmail Team
> 
> So my question is has anyone ever had this problem and if so 
> do you think I
> should do what they suggested above.
> 
> Thanks
> Richard Tener
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 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

[Randal, Phil]

Why???

Favorites is extremely useful.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 February 2002 16:47
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 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: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012

[Randal, Phil]

Eeek, wasn't that the buggy one?  ;-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 February 2002 12:42
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
> 
> 
> Its a good thing I'm still on DOS 4.0
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
> 
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp
> 
> Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail
> 
> Originally posted: February 27, 2002
> 
> Summary
> 
> Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) 
> Windows(r) 2000
> Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange 
> Server 2000
> 
> Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service
> 
> Maximum Severity Rating:Low
> 
> Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP 
> services should
> apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service.
> 
> Affected Software: 
> - Microsoft Windows 2000
> - Microsoft Windows XP Professional
> - Microsoft Exchange 2000
> 
> Technical description: 
> 
> An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 
> server products.
> Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, 
> uses the native
> Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own.  In addition,
> Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an 
> SMTP service
> that is not installed by default.  All of these 
> implementations contain a
> flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be 
> mounted against the
> service.
> 
> The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type 
> of SMTP command
> used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail.  
> By sending a
> malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause 
> the SMTP service
> to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the
> affected system, but would not cause the operating system 
> itself to fail.   
> 
> Mitigating factors:
> - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not
> affected by the vulnerability.
> - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do 
> provide an SMTP
> service, but it is not installed by default.
> - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default.
> However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and
> systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not 
> be at risk.
> - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, 
> is not affected
> by the vulnerability.
> - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the 
> SMTP service
> and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other
> internet services as well.  However, it would not disrupt any 
> other system
> functions.
> - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any 
> privileges on
> the affected system or to access users' email or data.
> 
> Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055
> 
> 
> 
> This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my
> subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since 
> its been a long
> time since anyone paid actual money for my programming 
> skills, it may or may
> not look that good...;-]
> 
> I can only hope that the information it does contain can be 
> read well enough
> to serve its purpose.
> 
> Cheers,
> Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor
> 
> oo
> oo
> Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure
> oo
> oo
> Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper
> 
> Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY.
> FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for 
> your Internet
> perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE 
> Vulnerability
> Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here!
> https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html
> oo
> oo
> 
> _
> 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]
> 
> --
> 
> Th

RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012

[Randal, Phil]

I think the two patches are independent of each other. 

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 28 February 2002 12:22
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
> 
> 
> This one is giving me a headache -- I have Exch 5.5 running on a Win2k
> server. I'm looking for the fine print that tells me which 
> patch to apply
> first, or at all, if any, or both. Your mileage may vary. Sigh.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 9:16 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 6:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Alert:Microsoft Security Bulletin - MS02-012
> 
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS02-012.asp
> 
> Malformed Data Transfer Request can Cause Windows SMTP Service to Fail
> 
> Originally posted: February 27, 2002
> 
> Summary
> 
> Who should read this bulletin: Customers using Microsoft(r) 
> Windows(r) 2000
> Server and Professional, Windows XP Professional and Exchange 
> Server 2000
> 
> Impact of vulnerability:Denial of Service
> 
> Maximum Severity Rating:Low
> 
> Recommendation:Customers who need the Windows 2000 SMTP 
> services should
> apply the patch; all others should disable the SMTP service.
> 
> Affected Software: 
> - Microsoft Windows 2000
> - Microsoft Windows XP Professional
> - Microsoft Exchange 2000
> 
> Technical description: 
> 
> An SMTP service installs by default as part of Windows 2000 
> server products.
> Exchange 2000, which can only be installed on Windows 2000, 
> uses the native
> Windows 2000 SMTP service rather than providing its own.  In addition,
> Windows 2000 and Windows XP workstation products provide an 
> SMTP service
> that is not installed by default.  All of these 
> implementations contain a
> flaw that could enable denial of service attacks to be 
> mounted against the
> service.
> 
> The flaw involves how the service handles a particular type 
> of SMTP command
> used to transfer the data that constitutes an incoming mail.  
> By sending a
> malformed version of this command, an attacker could cause 
> the SMTP service
> to fail. This would have the effect of disrupting mail services on the
> affected system, but would not cause the operating system 
> itself to fail.   
> 
> Mitigating factors:
> - Windows XP Home Edition does not provide an SMTP service, and is not
> affected by the vulnerability.
> - Windows 2000 Professional and Windows XP Professional do 
> provide an SMTP
> service, but it is not installed by default.
> - Windows 2000 server products do install the SMTP service by default.
> However, best practices recommend disabling any unneeded services, and
> systems on which the SMTP service had been disabled would not 
> be at risk.
> - Exchange 5.5, even if installed on a Windows 2000 server, 
> is not affected
> by the vulnerability.
> - The result of an attack would be limited to disrupting the 
> SMTP service
> and, depending on the system configuration, potentially IIS and other
> internet services as well.  However, it would not disrupt any 
> other system
> functions.
> - The vulnerability would not enable an attacker to gain any 
> privileges on
> the affected system or to access users' email or data.
> 
> Vulnerability identifier: CAN-2002-0055
> 
> 
> 
> This email is sent to NTBugtraq automatically as a service to my
> subscribers. Since its programmatically created, and since 
> its been a long
> time since anyone paid actual money for my programming 
> skills, it may or may
> not look that good...;-]
> 
> I can only hope that the information it does contain can be 
> read well enough
> to serve its purpose.
> 
> Cheers,
> Russ - Surgeon General of TruSecure Corporation/NTBugtraq Editor
> 
> oo
> oo
> Delivery co-sponsored by Qualys - Make Your Network Secure
> oo
> oo
> Go Beyond PARTIAL Security: FREE White Paper
> 
> Stop hassling with half-baked ENTERPRISE SECURITY.
> FREE White Paper shows you how to ensure TOTAL security for 
> your Internet
> perimeter with the most current and most complete PROACTIVE 
> Vulnerability
> Assessment solution. Get your FREE White Paper now. Click here!
> https://www.qualys.com/forms/techwhite_86.html
> oo
> oo
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.a

RE: File Version Check Utility?

[Randal, Phil]

Get KiXtart from www.kixtart.org

Then use the getfileversion function in a common KiXtart
login script to check, etc.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Michel, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 February 2002 13:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: File Version Check Utility?
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of a utility that will check the version of 
> a specific file
> (tcpip.sys) on all of my user's workstations?  I sent out a 
> link to a hotfix
> which changes the version of that file and requested they run 
> it ASAP but I
> obviously cannot be sure they all did so.  The machines are 
> all Win2k w/ sp2
> if that matters?  Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> David S. Michel
> MCSE/CNE
> Systems Engineer
> Ruden McClosky Smith Schuster & Russell, P.A.
> 200 East Broward Boulevard
> Suite 1600
> Fort Lauderdale, FL  33301
> 954-527-2456  Direct Phone
> 954-333-4056  Direct Fax
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message
> contains confidential information that may be legally 
> privileged. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, 
> convert to hard
> copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments 
> to it. If you
> have received this e-mail in error, please notify us 
> immediately by return
> e-mail or by telephone at 954-764-6660 and delete this 
> message. Please note
> that if this e-mail message contains a forwarded message or 
> is a reply to a
> prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any
> attachments may not have been produced by Ruden, McClosky, 
> Smith, Schuster,
> & Russell, P.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]
> 

_
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: OT Microsofts Knowledge Base

[Randal, Phil]

Just use www.google.com and prefix your query string with

"site:microsoft.com " (without the quote marks).

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Chuck Parkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 February 2002 17:08
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT Microsofts Knowledge Base
> 
> 
> Try using this KB site:
> 
> http://search.support.microsoft.com/kb/c.asp?fr=0&sd=tech&ln=en-us
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2002 8:22 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT Microsofts Knowledge Base
> 
> 
> the MS KB is now USELESS.  I am, at present, seeking a 
> channel to report
> this, but they really don't seem to care.  The premier 
> website is even worse
> - I can't even get in because the friggin' "passport" thing 
> is broken.  
> 
> Since they made the www.exinternals.com website go away, 
> there are now NO
> online support sites for Exchange, other than the ones maintained by
> volunteers.  
> 
> For those of us trying to do our jobs, they're making it really tough.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 2:21 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: OT Microsofts Knowledge Base
> 
> 
> Whats up with Microsoft's Knowledge Base?  For the last 
> couple of days I
> have been receiving a lot of errors.
> 
> _
> 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: haiku friday

[Randal, Phil]

No, shan't!

if there are en-ee more jobs :-)

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Dennis Depp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 February 2002 16:57
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: haiku friday
> 
> 
> Phil,
> 
> Please rewrite line 2
> Haiku should be five seven five
> Your line is one short
> 
> Denny
> 
> At 03:21 PM 2/8/2002 +, Randal, Phil wrote:
> >I have to ask you
> >if there are any more jobs
> >with cars where you work
> >
> >Lucky devil!
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >-
> >Phil Randal
> >Network Engineer
> >Herefordshire Council
> >Hereford, UK
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 08 February 2002 15:07
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: haiku friday
> > >
> > >
> > > review yesterday
> > > got a company car now
> > > plus salary raise
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> > > _
> > > 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: haiku friday

[Randal, Phil]

I have to ask you
if there are any more jobs
with cars where you work

Lucky devil!

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 08 February 2002 15:07
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: haiku friday
> 
> 
> review yesterday
> got a company car now
> plus salary raise
> 
> :)
> 
> _
> 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: Could not open one or more attachments!

[Randal, Phil]

Oops, no need to hound them - Hotfix 7 for groupshield 5.5 is in
the downloads section of www.mcafeeb2b.com .   You'll need your
NAI grant number to get in.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 15:20
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Could not open one or more attachments!
> 
> 
> The fix may be to increase OpenRetryDelay as detailed here:
> 
>   http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP
> 
> We use 0x800 as our value.
> 
> It's also worth hounding NAI for hotfix 7 for Groupshield 4.5 too
> and applying it.  It fixes some rather major bugs.
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Helio Coragem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 February 2002 14:14
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Could not open one or more attachments!
> > 
> > 
> > We use Groupshield.
> > Bingo!
> > You went direct to the point.
> > I started the "Scan on demand" feature and after a few 
> passes over the
> > mailboxes the bricklevel backup started to work.
> > 
> > I don´t know why this happens. Is it due the AV software?
> > It has  a "Scan on access" that is enabled all the time.
> > I should ask the AV softwarehouse.
> > 
> > Tks Nate and Chris
> > 
> > Helio
> > 
> > _
> > 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: Could not open one or more attachments!

[Randal, Phil]

The fix may be to increase OpenRetryDelay as detailed here:

  http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP

We use 0x800 as our value.

It's also worth hounding NAI for hotfix 7 for Groupshield 4.5 too
and applying it.  It fixes some rather major bugs.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Helio Coragem [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 February 2002 14:14
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Could not open one or more attachments!
> 
> 
> We use Groupshield.
> Bingo!
> You went direct to the point.
> I started the "Scan on demand" feature and after a few passes over the
> mailboxes the bricklevel backup started to work.
> 
> I don´t know why this happens. Is it due the AV software?
> It has  a "Scan on access" that is enabled all the time.
> I should ask the AV softwarehouse.
> 
> Tks Nate and Chris
> 
> Helio
> 
> _
> 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 Rules Problem

[Randal, Phil]

And what happens to you when someone auto-replies to your auto-reply???

BAD IDEA!

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bowles, John L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 31 January 2002 14:25
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Outlook Rules Problem
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> I'm trying to setup Auto Reply's to the internet.  I've 
> unchecked the box
> "Disable Auto-Replies to the internet" Now when I go into 
> Outlook to setup
> this Rule.  I have the rule to check messages when they 
> arrive that was sent
> to my name.  Then I have server send reply using basically an 
> email message
> back to the user.  In the email box I just put in the things 
> I want the user
> to know, hit save and close.  
> 
> But when I send messages to my mailbox it's not auto-replying 
> back to the
> internet.  It works internally, but not externally. 
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Thanks,
> ___
> 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]

RE: Basic Exchange 2K questions

[Randal, Phil]

The M: drive (M for Mail) just has to be a throwback to the old
Microsoft Mail days.  Someone on the Exchange team got a little
nostalgic, perhaps?

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 January 2002 17:10
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Basic Exchange 2K questions
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Are there any articles out there that explain why there are such
> radical changes since Exchange 5.x -> 2000?
> 
> For example, maybe all of you can shed some light on 3 questions:
> 
> 1. In 5.x - part of the install was a performance test of the system
>and all the hard drives - and it would suggest or let you specify
>where the message store and log files should go.
> 
> 2. Why is Active Directory such a huge component of Exchange 2000
>functioning?
> 
> 3. Why the heck does most of the data reside on a single drive by
>default?  This question sort of reverts back to question #1 - 
>and it just seems silly for the install process to not want to
>take advantage of multiple volumes, for performance reasons.
> 
> 4. What's up with this "M" Drive?  I know it's a virtual drive, but
>it's just such an odd way for storing data.  Especially when you
>are trying to view the contents of the M Drive - you can only do
>it inside of Explorer, or Browsing through Folders.  If you try
>to expand the tree inside of the IIS Utility, it gives an error
>of not being able to list all the subdirectories.  It's just plain
>weird.
> 
> Thank you ALL so much for your answers -
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 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 and Exch 5.5 sp4

[Randal, Phil]

You're a bit vague there - what is saying what, exactly, and when?

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Kruse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 02 January 2002 23:46
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Groupshield and Exch 5.5 sp4
> 
> 
> We just installed GS4.5.1, but in attempting to install Hotfix7 - it's
> saying we need Hotfix 5.
> Did we do something wrong?
> Thx
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 8:53 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Groupshield and Exch 5.5 sp4
> 
> 
> After installing Groupshield 4.5 SP1 install Hotfix 7 (from
> www.mcafeeb2b.com).
> 
> Then consult Microsoft's knowledgebase Q264731 and increase 
> the value of
> OpenRetryDelay (we use 0x800 here).
> 
> Don't forget to install the message body scanning addon either (also
> from mcafeeb2b.com).
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 01 January 2002 23:34
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Groupshield and Exch 5.5 sp4
> > 
> > 
> > I am getting ready to do this install, can anyone shed light 
> > on any issues
> > they have encoutered with this antivirus solution?
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > _
> > 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 and Exch 5.5 sp4

[Randal, Phil]

After installing Groupshield 4.5 SP1 install Hotfix 7 (from
www.mcafeeb2b.com).

Then consult Microsoft's knowledgebase Q264731 and increase the value of
OpenRetryDelay (we use 0x800 here).

Don't forget to install the message body scanning addon either (also
from mcafeeb2b.com).

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 January 2002 23:34
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Groupshield and Exch 5.5 sp4
> 
> 
> I am getting ready to do this install, can anyone shed light 
> on any issues
> they have encoutered with this antivirus solution?
> 
> Steve
> 
> _
> 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: Server memory?

[Randal, Phil]

That server should be more than adequate.  User demand for
mailbox space will grow, though, unless you have limits
enforced.

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Olds, Dominic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 20 December 2001 18:18
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Server memory?
> 
> 
> Does anyone have an idea of miminum memory requirements for 
> exchange servers
> based on number of mailboxes etc? I have read the paper from 
> M$ on this and
> can only find reference to monitoring swapfile usage. 
> I only have one server now (5.5 sp4 on win2K) but we have 
> just taken over
> another company thus giving me an extra 200 mailboxes.
> My server is a HP dual Xeon 700, 1 gig of RAM and plenty of 
> disk (90 gig on
> raid 5) SHould this cope OK with 6 or 7 hunderd users or should I get
> another server to remove some of the load?
> Ideally, if I can make this one box do it all (except IMS 
> which is relayed
> from an IIS machine in the DMZ) I would prefer this option 
> even if it means
> adding memory.
> Is there a "rule of thumb amount" of memory per mailbox i 
> should be looking
> to have?
> Thanks
> Dominic.
> 
> _
> 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: NDR's filling my mailbox

[Randal, Phil]

RFC 2821 states that MTAs must accept all mails from "<>",
as they are delivery notification messages.  Bouncing them,
as a lot of mailers do, is not RFC compliant and a bloody
nuisance :-)

Cheers,

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 December 2001 10:57
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: NDR's filling my mailbox
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Why is it a 'stupid' option for null senders?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:51 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: NDR's filling my mailbox
> 
> 
> Well at the moment I'm unable to access an Exchange 2000 
> admin program to
> pinpoint the answer to your questions... but the null sender message
> filtering option is is under whatever the top object is in 
> the admin (Global
> Settings?) on a message filtering tab I believe. The other 
> option is found
> on the default SMTP virtual server I believe.
> 
> However, I'm old and tired so my memory might be totally off.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hooks, Tim
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: 12/17/2001 3:15 PM
> Subject: RE: NDR's filling my mailbox
> 
> Thanks for your comments - where I can I find either of these options?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:59 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: NDR's filling my mailbox
> 
> 
> It's set on the SMTP virtual server. 
> 
> Also it appears that you are blocking mail with a null sender. While
> Exchange certainly supports this option, it's a. a stupid 
> option and b.
> non-RFC compliant.
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> Chris Scharff
> Senior Sales Engineer
> MessageOne
> If you can't measure, you can't manage! 
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hooks, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 3:04 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: NDR's filling my mailbox
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Everyone,
> > 
> > I recently added an Exchange 2000 server to my site and moved 
> > over all my users, Public folders, and created a new SMTP 
> > connector. I am now getting about 200 NDR messages a day. 
> > They are mostly spam sent old addresses. The last lines read
> > 
> >The e-mail account does not exist at the organization this 
> > message was sent to.  Check the e-mail address, or contact 
> > the recipient directly to find out the correct address.
> > < our_server.our domain.com #5.1.1 SMTP; 550 
> > MAILBOX NOT FOUND>
> > 
> > or
> >   A configuration error in the e-mail system caused the 
> > message to bounce between two servers or to be forwarded 
> > between two recipients.  Contact your administrator.
> > < our_server.our domain.com #5.4.6>
> > 
> > or
> >The format of the e-mail address is incorrect.  Check the 
> > address, look up the recipient in the Address Book, or 
> > contact the recipient directly to find out the correct address.
> > < our_server.our domain.com #5.1.3 SMTP; 553 From 
> > <>, message blocked.>
> > 
> > 
> > Part of the problem is this - our email domain name has had 3 
> > or 4 variations over the last five years, such that many of 
> > our users have 4 or 5 smtp addresses - [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc. So, email to the oldest 
> > address is not getting delivered, I seem to be unable to 
> > create any new SMTP addresses in the recipient policy that 
> > holds the highest priority. This puzzles me.
> > 
> > The real big problem I have is that the NDR are being sent to 
> > everyone in the administrators group - very annoying. I can 
> > not find where to turn this off. The setting under the 
> > virtual smtp server, messages, forward a copy is blank and 
> > the smtp vitrual server has been restarted. Any ideas on how 
> > to get these from being delivered to the administrator's group?
> > 
> > Thanks for your insights.
> > 
> > Tim Hooks
> > 
> 
> _
> 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]
> 
> 
> **
> The information contained in this message or any of its 
> attachments may be confidential and is intended for the 
> exclusive use of the addressee(s). Any disclosure, 
> reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of 
> this communication is strictly prohibited without the express 
> permission of the sender. The views expressed in this email 
> are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Sony 
> or Sony affiliated c

RE: UK Data Protection law changes affect Exchange Administrators

[Randal, Phil]

It would make my life as an Exchange Admin a bit easier
if we could just wipe all emails more than a year old
and then blame the Data Protection Act :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: F Tincey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 13 December 2001 12:09
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: UK Data Protection law changes affect Exchange
> Administrators
> 
> 
> 
> Are UK Exchange Admins feeling the impact of this ?
> Do the group have comments ?
>  
> This is taken from some marketing material forwarded to me, 
> I've removed
> advertising blurb from the end of the mail.
>  
> Fiona
>  
> -Original Message-
> Sent: 12 December 2001 17:39
> Subject: UK Data Protection law changes affect Exchange Administrators
> 
> 
> Included in here
> 
>  
> 
> *  the law changes and how they affect YOU
> 
> *  the eight principles of the Data Protection law
> 
> *  how the Exchange Admin can help your company comply
> 
> *  three actions you should take to help uphold the law
> 
>  
> 
> --
> 
> 
> How the new Data Protection Act affects the Exchange Administrator
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Are you aware that the Data Protection Act changed on 24 
> October 2001, and
> that 
> 
> some of the clauses of its enforcement affect YOU?
> 
>  
> 
> If you don't like reading e-mail about implications on the 
> law, read just
> this one, 
> 
> it may save your company a lot of time and money.
> 
>  
> 
> Changes in the law mean that even previously exempt companies 
> now have to
> comply. 
> 
> Much of the law revolves around employees being able to 
> request access to
> information 
> 
> held about themselves and it being held securely. And this 
> includes data
> held in e-mails 
> 
> and public folders!
> 
>  
> 
> So here is a good question for you. How would your Data 
> Protection Officer
> search for 
> 
> personnel type information in your Exchange environment 
> (mailboxes and/or
> folders)?
> 
>  
> 
> Here are the 8 basic principles for Data Protection and work 
> out which can
> be 
> 
> affected by the Exchange Administrator. Personal data must be ...
> 
>  1   fairly and lawfully processed  
> 
>  2   processed for limited purposes
> 
>  3   adequate, relevant and not excessive
> 
>  4   accurate 
> 
>  5   not kept longer than necessary 
> 
>  6   processed in accordance with the data subject's rights  
> 
>  7   secure
> 
>  8   not transferred to countries without adequate protection
> 
>  
> 
> Obviously these are under the jurisdiction of the Data 
> Protection Officer
> (DPO) or 
> 
> Information Officer (IO).
> 
> But in terms of data held as e-mail YOU as the Exchange Admin 
> have high
> levels of 
> 
> control on points 5, 7 and 8.
> 
>  
> 
> What do you need to do?
> 
> 1 - discuss the length of time that your DPO/IO wants such 
> information held
> (point 5) 
> 
> and show him/her how you can manage that in Exchange.
> 
> 2 - ensure that only the correct people have access to the 
> e-mails/folders,
> and that 
> 
> no inadvertent rights have been granted (point 7). 
> 
> 3 - ensure none of this information has been 
> exported/replicated to other
> servers (point 8). 
> 
> If it has, check where these servers are located, if in 
> European Union, you
> are probably 
> 
> OK. If they are outside the EU (US or elsewhere) then talk to 
> your DPO/IO,
> you need 
> 
> advice and they need to be aware.
> 
>   
> 
> Remember Data Protection is not just about information coming 
> and going from
> your 
> 
> system, but primarily about the information already stored there. 
> 
> *** If its there, you must be able to find it and ensure it 
> is secure.***
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Principles of Data Protection can be found at
> http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/principl.htm
>  
> --
> __
> _
> 
> The information in this email and in any attachment(s) is 
> commercial in confidence. If you are not the named 
> addressee(s) or if you receive this email in error then any 
> distribution, copying or use of this communication or the 
> information in it is strictly prohibited.  Please notify us 
> immediately by email at [EMAIL PROTECTED], and then delete 
> this message from your computer.  While attachments are virus 
> checked, AWE plc does not accept any liability in respect of 
> any virus which is not detected.
> 
> _
> 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: 

RE: Is there a workaround to use both MAPI and AVAPI with NAV fo r Ex change 5.5?

[Randal, Phil]

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 December 2001 14:29
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Is there a workaround to use both MAPI and AVAPI with NAV
> fo r Ex change 5.5?
> 
> 
> I have SP4 (hopefully the latest AVAPI) and the latest NAV 
> for exchange 5.5.
> There is a MSKB article about enabling "background scanning" 
> as a fix for these problems. 

_
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.

[Randal, Phil]

Some admins don't have that choice, alas :-(

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2001 14:08
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Groupshield install.
> 
> 
> Don't forget the most important part of the installDONT.
> Get ScanMail or Sybari. Put Groupshield back on the shelf.

_
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 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)

[Randal, Phil]

Look at

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP

we use 0x800 for openretrydelay here.

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Loftus Greig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2001 13:31
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)
> 
> 
> Eh... no!
> 
> Thanks for the reply though - I'm "pleased" to hear it's not 
> just Inoculan
> that suffers from this!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Loftus.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 17:20
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)
> 
> 
> I know Groupshield can suffer from this problem, though we 
> were able to
> minimize it through the timing changes in the registry. I'm 
> don't know if
> it's true with other AVAPI scanners though.
> 
> Did you write Mac shareware in years past?
> 
> -Peter
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Loftus Greig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:56
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)
> 
> 
> 
> NT4, SP6a, Exchange 5.5 SP4, CA InoculateIT 4.53
> 
> There are a few articles on MSKB which document the timing 
> problems that can
> arise with Exchange-aware virus scanners, specifically those 
> which prevent
> items from being accessed during archival and 
> synchronization. Exchange 5.5
> SP4 was supposed to address this, but for us the problem persists.
> 
> Does anyone know if -
> 
> 1) All AVAPI 1.0 based scanners suffer these problems ?
> 2) Exchange 2000 (AVAPI 2.0) sorts this ?
> 3) The registry values under 
> HKLM\...\Services\MSExchangeIS\AntiVirus\ can
> be adjusted to good effect (I've not had much luck so far) ?
> 
> I know that Antigen is well regarded and doesn't use AVAPI, 
> but I'm just
> anxious to know if we're really stuck with these problems 
> until the software
> is replaced. Our users experience a number of errors when 
> synchronizing or
> archiving in Outlook. Since many use laptops, this is a 
> pretty big issue.
> 
> Thanks for any advice,
> 
> Loftus Greig.
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 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]
> 

_
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.

[Randal, Phil]

The product just plain fails to work as it should without hotfix 7.

And hotfix 7 in publically available on www.mcafeeb2b.com (go to
downloads, software updates, log in with your grant number, go to
the patches / fuixes section of the download area, and there it is).

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Grupe, Robert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 05 December 2001 11:47
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Groupshield install.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a point of clarification...
> 
> McAfee Hot Fixes are developed to address specific customer 
> issues and do
> not go through the same rigorous quality assurance testing as public
> releases.
> As a result, they are only released by Support to customers who report
> experiencing a specific issue, but for customers not 
> experiencing the issue,
> it is not recommended that customers use it.  If a Hot Fix is 
> determined to
> be applicable to general users, then it will be posted on the publicly
> available web site for downloading.  Customers should address 
> any technical
> support issues with their Support representative who can then 
> best advise
> what actions to take based upon their specific configuration and
> environment.  Simply applying a Hot Fix or settings that were 
> optimized for
> a particular customer without first consulting Support may produce
> unintended results.
> 
> As to the original question, yes you will need to apply the 
> Names Resolution
> Utility.  GroupShield 5.0 for Exchange 5.5 will incorporate 
> this utility
> directly into GroupShield and so does not need to be 
> installed as a separate
> utility (http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/beta/products/gse55-intro.asp
> <http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/beta/products/gse55-intro.asp>  for more
> information).
> 
> Robert Grupe, PE
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From:   Chris Hyche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>   Sent:   Tuesday, 04 December, 2001 23:50
>   To: Exchange Discussions
>   Subject:RE: New Groupshield install.
> 
>   Can you post the exact link to the hotfix? For 
> the life of
> me I can't find
>   it on McAfees website.
> 
> 
>   Audio International
>   Chris Hyche
>   MIS Technician
>   Phone: (501) 801-0457
>   Fax: (501) 801-0421
>   www.audiointl.com
> 
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>   Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 5:06 AM
>   To: Exchange Discussions
>   Subject: RE: New Groupshield install.
> 
> 
>   We had to do the following to get groupshield 4.5 happy.
> 
>   Install Groupshield 4.5SP1, add hotfix 7 (which 
> is available
> from
>   www.mcafeeb2b.com at last).  Hotfix 7 is 
> essential for the
> (almost?)
>   correct operation of Groupshield.
> 
>   Read
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP and
>   digest.
> 
>   You have to change OpenRetryDelay from whatever the
> Groupshield installer
>   set it to for Groupshield to work properly. We use
> OpenRetryDelay = 0x800
>   here without problems.
> 
>   Phil
> 
>   -
>   Phil Randal
>   Network Engineer
>   Herefordshire Council
>   Hereford, UK 
> 
>   > -Original Message-
>   > From: Bean, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>   > Sent: 03 December 2001 20:57
>   > 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 

RE: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)

[Randal, Phil]

oops, brain not in gear..

  http://www.mcafeeb2b.com/naicommon/download/upgrade/login.asp

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil 
> Sent: 04 December 2001 17:29
> To: 'Exchange Discussions'
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)
> 
> 
> The fix is to increase OpenRetryDelay as detailed here:
> 
>   http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP
> 
> We use 0x800 as our value.
> 
> If you're using Groupshield, get hotfix 7 from http://b2b.mcafee.com
> (follow the download links for product updates, login, and look under
> patches etc).
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 17:20
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)
> > 
> > 
> > I know Groupshield can suffer from this problem, though we 
> > were able to minimize it through the timing changes in the 
> > registry. I'm don't know if it's true with other AVAPI 
> > scanners though.
> > 
> > Did you write Mac shareware in years past?
> > 
> > -Peter
>  
> 

_
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 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)

[Randal, Phil]

The fix is to increase OpenRetryDelay as detailed here:

  http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP

We use 0x800 as our value.

If you're using Groupshield, get hotfix 7 from http://b2b.mcafee.com
(follow the download links for product updates, login, and look under
patches etc).

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 17:20
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 5.5 AVAPI (Anti-Virus interface)
> 
> 
> I know Groupshield can suffer from this problem, though we 
> were able to minimize it through the timing changes in the 
> registry. I'm don't know if it's true with other AVAPI 
> scanners though.
> 
> Did you write Mac shareware in years past?
> 
> -Peter
 

_
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 outbreak

[Randal, Phil]

Yessir!

We all read your now (in)famous list.

Didn't we?  ;-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 17:05
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Virus outbreak
> 
> 
> We are all blocking .SCR files anyway...right kids?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 8:15 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: New Virus outbreak
> 
> 
> Please note that there is a new Email virus out with an 
> attachment Gone.scr
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Paul
> 
> Standards are like toothbrushes,
> everybody agrees you should have one,
> but no one wants to use yours
> 
> 
> 
> **
> The information contained in this message or any of its 
> attachments may be
> confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the 
> addressee(s). Any
> disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination 
> or use of this
> communication is strictly prohibited without the express 
> permission of the
> sender. The views expressed in this email are those of the 
> individual and
> not necessarily those of Sony or Sony affiliated companies. 
> Sony email is
> for business use only. 
> 
> This email and any response may be monitored by Sony UK.
> (05)
> **
> 
> 
> _
> 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: Spurious attachment permissions issue...

[Randal, Phil]

Well, as they're using Internet Exploder security has already gone out the
window(s TM).  :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 16:10
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> Um, security?
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE MCT
> Senior Systems Administrator
> Peregrine Systems
> Atlanta, GA
> http://www.peregrine.com
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:42 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Microsoft in their
> > infinite wisdom decided to make Temporary Internet Files
> > a property of the user (i.e. in their profile) as against
> > just one directory per PC?
> > 
> > The case of diskless workstations is a trivial one, so we
> > can ignore that and look for deeper meanings :-)
> > 
> > Phil
> > 
> > -
> > Phil Randal
> > Network Engineer
> > Herefordshire Council
> > Hereford, UK 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:31
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Now, that is interesting because I prevent the Temporary 
> > > Internet Files
> > > folder from roaming with the profile as many of my users tend 
> > > to build up
> > > rather large profiles with their internet activity... Arrgh! 
> > > - It's all my
> > > fault!!
> > > 
> > > Thanks Louis!
> > > 
> > > PBB
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:17
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The way i do it when i have the problem is to just simply 
> > > make sure they
> > > have a Temporary Internet Folder in their roaming profile. I 
> > > dont do any of
> > > the registry editing or anything. Make sure they are logged 
> > out first.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Mr Louis Joyce
> > > Computer Support Analyst
> > > Network Administrator
> > > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 14:53
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Very very close except there is no TS in the mix.  I did come 
> > > across this
> > > and even tried the reg hack to see if it worked... but no, 
> > > sadly.  Thanks
> > > anyway...
> > > 
> > > PBB
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 14:36
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q268/7/44.ASP
> > > 
> > > Try this.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > Mr Louis Joyce
> > > Computer Support Analyst
> > > Network Administrator
> > > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 14:33
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ~ndi
> > > 
> > > EX5.5 sp4 - 1 site, 11 servers - all attached via leased 
> > > lines.  Clients are
> > > all O2K on NT4 sp6a - identical builds.
> > > 
> > > Random users at different sites complain of the inability to o

RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...

[Randal, Phil]

With roaming profiles on a server, and thousands of users...

Plain crazy..  (No, not me...)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 15:53
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> So all you really wanted to do was complain?
> 
> Disk space is very cheap, I for one would much rather have speed then
> disk space...
> 
> --
> Kevinm M WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, CKWSE CKST
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Randal, Phil
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:53 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> Given the negative side effects of this (huge amounts of
> disk space on servers wasted, for one, excessive network 
> traffic, etc),
> it's just anoither reason not to use such software :-)
> 
> Phil 
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:43
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:42
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Microsoft in their
> > > infinite wisdom decided to make Temporary Internet Files a 
> > > property of the user (i.e. in their profile) as against just 
> > > one directory per PC?
> > > 
> > > The case of diskless workstations is a trivial one, so we 
> can ignore
> 
> > > that and look for deeper meanings :-)
> > > 
> > 
> > Because users are more likely to visit the pages they were
> > viewing more than
> > once than they are to access pages some other user was 
> > viewing, therefore it
> > makes some sense to cache per user. Not to mention cookies, 
> > offline viewing
> > of pages in history, and suchlike.
> > 
> > --
> > Robert Moir,
> > IT Systems Engineer, 
> > Luton Sixth Form College
> > "Linux: Like an Operating System. But Different."
> > 
> > --
> > This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains 
> > information
> > that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
> > dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
> > persons or
> > unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is 
> > strictly prohibited.
> > 
> > The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the 
> views or 
> > policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students.
> > 
> > _
> > 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]
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 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: Spurious attachment permissions issue...

[Randal, Phil]

Given the negative side effects of this (huge amounts of
disk space on servers wasted, for one, excessive network
traffic, etc), it's just anoither reason not to use such
software :-)

Phil 

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 15:43
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:42
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Microsoft in their 
> > infinite wisdom decided to make Temporary Internet Files a 
> > property of the user (i.e. in their profile) as against just 
> > one directory per PC?
> > 
> > The case of diskless workstations is a trivial one, so we
> > can ignore that and look for deeper meanings :-)
> > 
> 
> Because users are more likely to visit the pages they were 
> viewing more than
> once than they are to access pages some other user was 
> viewing, therefore it
> makes some sense to cache per user. Not to mention cookies, 
> offline viewing
> of pages in history, and suchlike.
> 
> -- 
> Robert Moir,
> IT Systems Engineer, 
> Luton Sixth Form College
> "Linux: Like an Operating System. But Different."
> 
> -- 
> This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains 
> information
> that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review,
> dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by 
> persons or
> unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is 
> strictly prohibited.
> 
> The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or
> policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students.
> 
> _
> 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: Spurious attachment permissions issue...

[Randal, Phil]

Cookies, yes, but cached web pages???

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 15:40
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> Roaming profiles.. Cookies.. To name a few... Their wisdom is so
> infinite they are thinking of features that you might never 
> need, but if
> you do, they are there...
> 
> --
> Kevinm M WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, CKWSE CKST
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Randal, Phil
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 7:42 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Microsoft in their infinite
> wisdom decided to make Temporary Internet Files a property of the user
> (i.e. in their profile) as against just one directory per PC?
> 
> The case of diskless workstations is a trivial one, so we
> can ignore that and look for deeper meanings :-)
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:31
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > Now, that is interesting because I prevent the Temporary
> > Internet Files
> > folder from roaming with the profile as many of my users tend 
> > to build up
> > rather large profiles with their internet activity... Arrgh! 
> > - It's all my
> > fault!!
> > 
> > Thanks Louis!
> > 
> > PBB
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 15:17
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > The way i do it when i have the problem is to just simply
> > make sure they
> > have a Temporary Internet Folder in their roaming profile. I 
> > dont do any of
> > the registry editing or anything. Make sure they are logged 
> out first.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Mr Louis Joyce
> > Computer Support Analyst
> > Network Administrator
> > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 14:53
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > Very very close except there is no TS in the mix.  I did come
> > across this
> > and even tried the reg hack to see if it worked... but no, 
> > sadly.  Thanks
> > anyway...
> > 
> > PBB
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 14:36
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q268/7/44.ASP
> > 
> > Try this.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Mr Louis Joyce
> > Computer Support Analyst
> > Network Administrator
> > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 04 December 2001 14:33
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> > 
> > 
> > ~ndi
> > 
> > EX5.5 sp4 - 1 site, 11 servers - all attached via leased
> > lines.  Clients are
> > all O2K on NT4 sp6a - identical builds.
> > 
> > Random users at different sites complain of the inability to open 
> > attachments, getting a failure because of a lack of 
> permissions.  The 
> > not-so-helpful help message suggests saving the attachment 
> first which
> 
> > of course does not work... because of a lack of permissions.  Other 
> > users equivalent to the affected user who also receive a copy of
> > the message can
> > open it OK therefore because of single-instance messaging I 
> > can discount a
> > corrupted file issue.   Having the affected user send me the 
> > message, I can
> > open it fine.  
> > 
> > The only resolution so f

RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...

[Randal, Phil]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know why Microsoft in their
infinite wisdom decided to make Temporary Internet Files
a property of the user (i.e. in their profile) as against
just one directory per PC?

The case of diskless workstations is a trivial one, so we
can ignore that and look for deeper meanings :-)

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 15:31
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> Now, that is interesting because I prevent the Temporary 
> Internet Files
> folder from roaming with the profile as many of my users tend 
> to build up
> rather large profiles with their internet activity... Arrgh! 
> - It's all my
> fault!!
> 
> Thanks Louis!
> 
> PBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 04 December 2001 15:17
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> The way i do it when i have the problem is to just simply 
> make sure they
> have a Temporary Internet Folder in their roaming profile. I 
> dont do any of
> the registry editing or anything. Make sure they are logged out first.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mr Louis Joyce
> Computer Support Analyst
> Network Administrator
> BT Ignite eSolutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 14:53
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> Very very close except there is no TS in the mix.  I did come 
> across this
> and even tried the reg hack to see if it worked... but no, 
> sadly.  Thanks
> anyway...
> 
> PBB
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: 04 December 2001 14:36
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q268/7/44.ASP
> 
> Try this.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Mr Louis Joyce
> Computer Support Analyst
> Network Administrator
> BT Ignite eSolutions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 14:33
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> ~ndi
> 
> EX5.5 sp4 - 1 site, 11 servers - all attached via leased 
> lines.  Clients are
> all O2K on NT4 sp6a - identical builds.
> 
> Random users at different sites complain of the inability to open
> attachments, getting a failure because of a lack of permissions.  The
> not-so-helpful help message suggests saving the attachment 
> first which of
> course does not work... because of a lack of permissions.  Other users
> equivalent to the affected user who also receive a copy of 
> the message can
> open it OK therefore because of single-instance messaging I 
> can discount a
> corrupted file issue.   Having the affected user send me the 
> message, I can
> open it fine.  
> 
> The only resolution so far is to eventually trash their NT 
> profile - once
> recreated the problem goes away.  This is obviously not the 
> best way to do
> it.
> 
> I have done the usual searches of the archives, MS support 
> and even some
> anti-virus sites and the web in general but no joy.  Any 
> ideas or pointers
> would be most appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul W. Bouzan.
> Network Manager.
> Millfield Group plc.
> T 020 8680 5200
> F 020 8680 5900
> M 07940 583525
> 
> 
> _
> 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://ww

RE: Spurious attachment permissions issue...

[Randal, Phil]

What Antivirus software is running on the exchange servers?

Is http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP
relevant?

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Bouzan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 04 December 2001 14:33
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Spurious attachment permissions issue...
> 
> 
> ~ndi
> 
> EX5.5 sp4 - 1 site, 11 servers - all attached via leased 
> lines.  Clients are
> all O2K on NT4 sp6a - identical builds.
> 
> Random users at different sites complain of the inability to open
> attachments, getting a failure because of a lack of permissions.  The
> not-so-helpful help message suggests saving the attachment 
> first which of
> course does not work... because of a lack of permissions.  Other users
> equivalent to the affected user who also receive a copy of 
> the message can
> open it OK therefore because of single-instance messaging I 
> can discount a
> corrupted file issue.   Having the affected user send me the 
> message, I can
> open it fine.  
> 
> The only resolution so far is to eventually trash their NT 
> profile - once
> recreated the problem goes away.  This is obviously not the 
> best way to do
> it.
> 
> I have done the usual searches of the archives, MS support 
> and even some
> anti-virus sites and the web in general but no joy.  Any 
> ideas or pointers
> would be most appreciated.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paul W. Bouzan.
> Network Manager.
> Millfield Group plc.
> T 020 8680 5200
> F 020 8680 5900
> M 07940 583525
> 
> 
> _
> 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.

[Randal, Phil]

We had to do the following to get groupshield 4.5 happy.

Install Groupshield 4.5SP1, add hotfix 7 (which is available from
www.mcafeeb2b.com at last).  Hotfix 7 is essential for the (almost?)
correct operation of Groupshield.

Read http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP and
digest.

You have to change OpenRetryDelay from whatever the Groupshield installer
set it to for Groupshield to work properly. We use OpenRetryDelay = 0x800
here without problems.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bean, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 December 2001 20:57
> 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]
> 

_
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: Badtrans and SirCam

[Randal, Phil]

I had fun explaining to a naive-user in the weekend why
antivirus software was essential.

"If it is that essential, why doesn't it come with
Windows XP?"

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> p.s. I do part time Internet consulting with a U.S. ISP with 
> over 130,000
> users, on average I speak to 100 users a weekend with about 
> 80% expressing
> the above attitude.  95% of WinME users express their 
> frustration.  And try
> explaining why Windows XP that they just bought needs 
> 'security updates'
> (besides the fact that the Connexant modem that came with the 
> system, will
> only keep them connected for less than 10 minutes  sheesh

_
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: Badtrans and SirCam

[Randal, Phil]

Corporate policies may or may not allow all users to
access WindowsUpdate, or if they are using WinNT / 2000 / XP
they might not have local admin rights.

Not quite as simple as your glib assertion would have it.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 December 2001 14:37
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Badtrans and SirCam
> 
> 
> Why should I blame the AV product.
> 
> Both problems could have been fixed by the users going to the 
> WINDOWSUPDATE
> site and pulling down the critical updates. That's not too 
> hard is it? The
> users just have to open IE, click on Tools -> Windows Update, 
> then when the
> site pops up, down load the critical updates. They don't even 
> have to check
> the box, just hit the big blue arrow that says DOWNLOAD, then 
> reboot at the
> end.
> 
> For all the griping people do at/about Microsoft, they 
> couldn't have made it
> any easier to keep a workstation up to date on basic security fixes.
> 
> 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: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 8:50 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Exchange Discussions (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Badtrans and SirCam
> 
> 
> Yeah, well Mcafee 4.5.1 (NO SP) would not detect badtrans 
> with compressed
> files set and scan default files (even tho PIF and SCR in the 
> default file
> scan) the 4176/4.1.60 combination fixes that. So don't quite 
> blame the user
> :-)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, 1 December 2001 2:46 a.m.
> To: Exchange Discussions (E-mail); Advanced Mail Admins (E-mail)
> Subject: Badtrans and SirCam
> 
> 
> 399 hits in two days. Most are BadTrans or SirCam.
> 
> One would think that these home users would have received a 
> clue or two from
> all the news coverage of each outbreak.
> 
> Ack... It disgusts me.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> ***
> This e-mail is  not an  official  statement of  the
> Waikato  Regional  Council unless otherwise stated.
> Visit our website http://www.ew.govt.nz
> ***
> 
>  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> -~-->
> See What You've Been Missing!
> Amazing Wireless Video Camera.
> Click here
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/75YKVC/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/dpFolB/TM
> --
> ---~->
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> _
> 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: Server why, why me

[Randal, Phil]

Also try memtest86 from www.memtest86.com

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Alverson, Thomas M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 November 2001 17:50
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Server why, why me
> 
> 
> A good free ram test program is available a 
> www.simmtester.com.  It creates
> a bootable (dos) floppy that will run a ram test for as many 
> times as you
> wish.  If you have a hard failure you will probably know 
> withing 5 minutes
> (somewhere in the first pass).  I had one system that would 
> fail after about
> 20 minutes when things warmed up.
> 
> Tom
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Nick Field [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:43 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Server why, why me
> 
> 
> I have seen this happen with PcAnywhere.
> Remotely killed it and the server decided to play again.
> 
> Nick
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 4:01 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Server why, why me
> 
> Came into work today and my exchange server 5.5 on windows nt 
> sp6 was not
> responding. I dont know how this happened, the only thing 
> that was on the
> desktop was the cursor and wallpaper no icons or start menu.  
> I tried to
> press Ctrl alt del and nothing happened.  Couldnt get the 
> server to respond
> for some reason.  The cusor would move when I moved the mouse 
> and thats it
> so I pressed the big button.  The server is up and running 
> fine now and I
> check the event viewer and the only thing it gave me back was 
> an unexpected
> shutdown occoured at 11:46pm.  Did this ever happen to anyone 
> before.  All
> thoughts would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks
> Rich
> 
> _
> 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: Haiku Friday

[Randal, Phil]

You've obviously
drunk too much booze already
not proper haiku

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Butler, Simon (London) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 November 2001 15:32
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Haiku Friday
> 
> 
> Lager Lager Lager Lager,
> Lager Lager Lager Lager Lager Lager Lager Lager,
> I live in London
> 
> S
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 3:39 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Haiku Friday
> 
> 
> Snow snow snow snow snow
> Snow snow snow snow snow snow snow
> I live in utah
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 7:28 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Haiku Friday
> 
> Accelerated
> Passed it yesterday at 2
> On to the hard stuff
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Denis Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:24 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Haiku Friday
> 
> 
> Sircam and BadTrans
> Hundreds of Attempts this week
> Thank The Gods for Trend
> 
> Denis
> 
> _
> 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]
> 
> 
> --
> **
> 
> Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be 
> secure or error-free as their content could be intercepted, 
> corrupted, lost, arrive late or contain viruses. 
> 
> The sender therefore does not accept liability for any 
> errors or omissions in the context of this message which 
> arise as a result of its internet transmission.
> 
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential 
> and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
> whom they are addressed.  If you have received this email 
> in error please notify the [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> 
> Any opinions contained in this message are those of the 
> author and are not given or endorsed by any entity or office
> through which this message has been sent unless otherwise 
> clearly indicated in this message and the authority of 
> the author to so bind Merrill Lynch HSBC Limited or 
> any other company within its group is duly verified.
> 
> Any email may be monitored in accordance with 
> Merrill Lynch HSBC Limited's communication policy.
> 
> Merrill Lynch HSBC Limited Registered Office 
> 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ.  
> Registered in England Number 3973777 
> 
> 
> 
> Merrill Lynch HSBC Limited regulated by the FSA
> 
> **
> 
> _
> 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: Badtrans and SirCam

[Randal, Phil]

A publically accessible web server I set up this week (Apache, not IIS),
is getting hit by Nimda scans 5 times a day.

Some folks never learn.

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 November 2001 13:51
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Badtrans and SirCam
> 
> 
> I offer free service for my users home PC's if they want to bring them
> in. About 1 in 5 has AV software on them
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of John Matteson
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 5:46 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Badtrans and SirCam
> 
> 
> 399 hits in two days. Most are BadTrans or SirCam.
> 
> One would think that these home users would have received a 
> clue or two
> from all the news coverage of each outbreak.
> 
> Ack... It disgusts me.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _
> 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 freezing up on certain items

[Randal, Phil]

We run Groupshield 4.5SP1 here, and had the same problems.

The fix is to increase OpenRetryDelay as detailed here:

  http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP

We use 0x800 as our value.

It's also worth hounding NAI for hotfix 7 for Groupshield 4.5 too
and applying it.  It fixes some rather major bugs.

Phil
-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Kalligonis, Tim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 15 November 2001 13:58
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Outlook freezing up on certain items
> 
> 
> I would like to see if anyone has experience a problem like 
> this and knows
> how to resolve it.
> 
> On one of the servers in our site, when a user opens a text 
> email it opens
> fine.  When they try to open an email with an attachment, 
> read receipt, or
> OOO reply Outlook freezes up.  I have not been able to find 
> anything in
> MSKB.  There is nothing in the even log that indicates a problem after
> turning up logging on the IS.
> 
> The server is NT4 SP6a, Exchange 5.5 SP4 w/Q282533 Post SP4 
> fix, and NAI
> Group Shield Exchange v4.5 SP1.
> 
> _
> 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: OT - Latin Lesson

[Randal, Phil]

Computer Weekly in the UK published this gem a
few weeks back.

"A senior editor from Bristol Classical Press,
inspired by his fallible spell checker, wrote:

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea

Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong or write
It shows me strait a weigh."

Throw that at your speech recognition software!

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 14 November 2001 14:35
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT - Latin Lesson
> 
> 
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Elizabeth Farrell wrote:
> > You wanna use your manual speelcheeker! :)
> 
>   Spell cheque dew knot work write.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
> author and do not |
> | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other 
> person, entity or  |
> | organization.  All information is provided without warranty 
> of any kind.  |
> 
> 
> _
> 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: I need help with edb*.log files

[Randal, Phil]

They are the transaction logs created since the last full
backup of your exchange databases (by exchange-aware backup programs).

They normally get deleted after a successful backup.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 November 2001 16:59
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: I need help with edb*.log files
> 
> 
> I have about 200 edb.log files in my mdbdata folder. How 
> do they get
> cleaned up and why did my server generate so many of them?
> 
> Thank You,
> Robert Williams
> Senior Network Administrator
> Raypak, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phone - 805-278-5363
> FAX - 818-464-6982
> www.raypak.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: It's not Microsoft's fault because....

[Randal, Phil]

Netscape's invention, actually.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/2001/04/06/js_history.html

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Black, Nathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 12 November 2001 16:18
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
> 
> 
> JavaScript is Microsoft's concoction of what they felt Java 
> should be like.
> Pure Java uses a Sun Java approved runtime (like IBM's).
> 
> JavaScript has just about the same issues as VBscript, and 
> doesn't really
> have a sandbox.  Only the real Java does.
> 
> Nathan 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Benjamin Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 10:26 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: It's not Microsoft's fault because
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Mike Carlson wrote:
> > >>> I have no idea what you're talking about. Seems to me that every
> > >>> useful scripting language is potentially dangerous.
> > >>
> > >>   True.  However, most scripting languages don't
> > >> automatically execute when emailed to you... :-)
> > >
> > > JavaScript will in HTML email.
> > 
> >   JavaScript is sandboxed.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the 
> > author and do not |
> > | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other 
> > person, entity or  |
> > | organization.  All information is provided without warranty 
> > of any kind.  |
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > 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: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??

[Randal, Phil]

Two stroppy ladies
clashing on the list today
Oh how amusing

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Helfer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 November 2001 16:18
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> 
> 
>  "A reputation I've cultivated in earnest"
> 
>   That's a great line.
> 
>   Jim 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kim Cameron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:13 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> 
> oh, pul-leeze.  you don't know anything about me, and you've 
> only been on
> the list a couple of weeks.  i'm not uptight, quite possibly 
> scads more
> *fun* than you might imagine.  you really don't need to worry about
> embarrassing me on the exchange list.  i'm not exactly 
> quaking in my boots
> at the prospect that some of the people here think i'm a 
> bitch - it's a
> reputation i've cultivated in earnest.
> 
> you can't possibly have read the archives, or you'd know that 
> boring drivel
> like this thread is what has driven away most of the helpful technical
> people over the years.  ultimately, that decreases the likelihood that
> interesting exchange discussions will take place.
> 
> besides, it's friday, and the minimum daily requirement of 
> fish taco haiku
> has not been met.  of course, mention of Kelly's boots should 
> always be
> worked in if possible.
> 
> _
> 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]

Flirtatious Haiku Friday

[Randal, Phil]

To flirt on this list
Is really out of order
I am a culprit

Phil :-)

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, 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]

RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??

[Randal, Phil]

Glad to hear someone's getting it!

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Elizabeth Farrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 09 November 2001 19:22
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> 
> 
> Groan, that herts...truly dreadful.
> The really sad thing is that I am probably the only one on 
> the list (besides
> you)
> who gets it.
> 
> E.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> 
> I think I preferred the Puns, people round here are Welwyn to that.
> 
> SB
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> Ahem.  Err... I'm kinda new to this flirting thing.  Umm 
> So Are
> you a umm... thief? Why? Err Wellbecause... 
> ummm... you
> stole... the sunshine from my eyes
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> 
> Flirting?  Ok, I'll start it off
> 
> To all the women out there.What's your sign?  Come here often?
> Didn't I see you the last time I saw you?
> 
> 
> Bill Lambert
> Endoxy Healthcare
> 847-941-9206
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Milt Atkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 12:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> 
> 
> What the hell is this all about ...?
> 
> 
> >From: "Elizabeth Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> >Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 17:46:01 -0800
> >
> >
> >Pah.
> >[1]Your pun was worse than mine.
> >[2]Who's flirting??? I'm serious :)
> >
> >[3] If you can't stand the heat.get outta Hitchin', or so "they"
> >say What the hell does that mean???
> >
> >
> >E.
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> >
> >It herts me to say this, but I'm in Hereford.  No more talk
> >of Hitchin, please[1].
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >[1] That's taking flirtation a little too far :-)
> >
> >-
> >Phil Randal
> >Network Engineer
> >Herefordshire Council
> >Hereford, UK
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Elizabeth Farrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Subject: OT - flirtatiousness on THIS list??
> >
> > > well it is an 'Exchange' list after all.
> > >
> > > /me ducks in anticipation of rotten tomatoes..
> > >
> > > OOoh as you work for the Herts county council, can you 
> make sure all
> > > the services in Hitchin work properly as I have just bought a
> > > house there??
> > >
> > > <> :)
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > E.
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: RE: <> (was:RE: Fonts)
> > >
> > > Are flirtatious exchanges [1] within the remit of this list? ;-)
> > >
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > [1] Does Microsoft sell those?
> > >
> > > -
> > > Phil Randal
> > > Network Engineer
> > > Herefordshire Council
> > > Hereford, UK
> > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Elizabeth Farrell 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Subject: RE: <> (was:RE: Fonts)
> > >
> > > > life, love and the pursuit of sensible threads on this list
> > > > *wink*...
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: <> (was:RE: Fonts)
> > > >
> > > > What's so funny young lady?
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mr Louis Joyce
> > > > Computer Support Analyst
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Elizabeth Farrell 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Subject: <> (was:RE: Fonts)
> > > >
> > > > Ha ha ha..rofl
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: RE: Fonts
> > > >
> > > > e.
> > > >
> > > > Well the email you have just sent doesn't contain any of those
> > > > little quirks at the bottom anymore.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Mr Louis Joyce
> > > > Computer Support Analyst
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > BT Ignite eSolutions
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Roberto Glavich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > Subject: RE: Fonts
> > > >
> > > > I applied the patch in the
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q273/6/15.ASP
> > >  article.
> > > But it seems not to have worked.
> > >
> > > /Roberto
> > >
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc

RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5

[Randal, Phil]

Seriously, if you have to ask, don't even attempt it.

In my case the server had two Groupshield exchange items as
seen from exchange admin.  It was largely a cosmetic error.
I deleted the original Groupshield directories and reinstalled
Groupshield 4.5, then ran exchange admin in raw mode
to delete the old entry.  Server has working fine ever since.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Javier Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 31 October 2001 10:20
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> 
> 
> How was this process? 
>   "I had to do a raw edit in exchange admin to remove the 
> remains of 4.03
> in the other"
> 
> I've tried uninstall 4.03 and failed. It wasn't totally and 
> as a result of
> the 4.5 installation also failed, therefore I've the Exch55 
> server in a bad
> situation.
> 
> Thanks.
> Javier Gonzalez.
> 
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: miércoles, 31 de octubre de 2001 10:59
> Para: Exchange Discussions
> Asunto: RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> 
> 
> I thought I'd spare the list the fun I had upgrading from Groupshield
> 4.03 to 4.5.  Worked a treat on two out of three mail servers.
> 
> I had to do a raw edit in exchange admin to remove the remains of 4.03
> in the other :-(
> 
> Still, so far, with hotfix 7, it has been stable.
> 
> Phil
> 
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 30 October 2001 17:01
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> > 
> > 
> > If you are currently using the client piece of Groupshield 
> > you should remove your old version of Groupshield entirely 
> > and install the new from scratch, rather than trying to 
> > upgrade to the new version. 
> > 
> > Grab the Message Body Scanner utility from the NAI website, 
> > and install it after you get Groupshield installed or 
> > upgraded. This is the piece that allows you to detect the 
> > kak.worm and other viruses that are embedded in the message body. 
> > 
> > When you're asked if you want to quarantine viruses in a 
> > folder or database, pick database. This is necessary if you 
> > want to use the add-on utility that allows you to determine 
> > where messages are being sent from and to.
> > 
> > If you can't pry hotfix 7 out of NAI, set the action to take 
> > on virus detection, under the On Access tab, to "Quarantine 
> > without attempting to disinfect." This is because before 
> > hotfix 7, Groupshield didn't always copy successfully with 
> > the Magistr virus when trying to clean it. Of course if you 
> > decide to filter out all EXE attachments that's a moot point.
> > 
> > -Peter
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:52
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> > 
> > 
> > In a nutshell, yes.
> > 
> > Make sure Exchange is patched to at least SP4.
> > 
> > Beg, borrow, or steal Hotfix 7 for Groupshield and apply
> > as soon as possible.  This is a critical update, needed for
> > core functionality of the product.  I would not try to run
> > Groupshield without it.  Actually, I did, which is why I
> > make this comment :-(
> > 
> > You'll need to edit the registry on the exchange server
> > 
> > In
> > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchang
> > eIS\VirusScan
> > set the OpenRetryDelay value to at least 0x500 (we use 0x800 here).
> > 
> > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP
> > 
> > recommends an even higher value.
> > 
> > And after changing this key, you'll need to restart the Exchange
> > IS service.  NAI claims you don't need to, but, not so in our
> > experience.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Phil
> > -
> > Phil Randal
> > Network Engineer
> > Herefordshire Council
> > Hereford, UK 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Sebastian, Didy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5

[Randal, Phil]

I thought I'd spare the list the fun I had upgrading from Groupshield
4.03 to 4.5.  Worked a treat on two out of three mail servers.

I had to do a raw edit in exchange admin to remove the remains of 4.03
in the other :-(

Still, so far, with hotfix 7, it has been stable.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 October 2001 17:01
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> 
> 
> If you are currently using the client piece of Groupshield 
> you should remove your old version of Groupshield entirely 
> and install the new from scratch, rather than trying to 
> upgrade to the new version. 
> 
> Grab the Message Body Scanner utility from the NAI website, 
> and install it after you get Groupshield installed or 
> upgraded. This is the piece that allows you to detect the 
> kak.worm and other viruses that are embedded in the message body. 
> 
> When you're asked if you want to quarantine viruses in a 
> folder or database, pick database. This is necessary if you 
> want to use the add-on utility that allows you to determine 
> where messages are being sent from and to.
> 
> If you can't pry hotfix 7 out of NAI, set the action to take 
> on virus detection, under the On Access tab, to "Quarantine 
> without attempting to disinfect." This is because before 
> hotfix 7, Groupshield didn't always copy successfully with 
> the Magistr virus when trying to clean it. Of course if you 
> decide to filter out all EXE attachments that's a moot point.
> 
> -Peter
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Randal, Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 1:52
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, yes.
> 
> Make sure Exchange is patched to at least SP4.
> 
> Beg, borrow, or steal Hotfix 7 for Groupshield and apply
> as soon as possible.  This is a critical update, needed for
> core functionality of the product.  I would not try to run
> Groupshield without it.  Actually, I did, which is why I
> make this comment :-(
> 
> You'll need to edit the registry on the exchange server
> 
> In
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchang
> eIS\VirusScan
> set the OpenRetryDelay value to at least 0x500 (we use 0x800 here).
> 
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q264/7/31.ASP
> 
> recommends an even higher value.
> 
> And after changing this key, you'll need to restart the Exchange
> IS service.  NAI claims you don't need to, but, not so in our
> experience.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil
> -
> Phil Randal
> Network Engineer
> Herefordshire Council
> Hereford, UK 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Sebastian, Didy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 30 October 2001 09:20
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Groupshield For Exchange Version 4.5
> > 
> > 
> > Can anyone tell me if they have had issues with upgrading 
> > their virus scan
> > software to Groupshield version 4.5
> > 
> > I have been told that there can be problems.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Didy
> > 
> > _
> > 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: Trend Micro Medium Risk Virus Alert - PE_NIMDA.E

[Randal, Phil]

The attachment is now sample.exe
The dropped dll is httpodbc.dll
Worm is dropped into system directory as csrss.exe (was mmc.exe).

McAfee says it will be detected by existing DAT patterns.

Phil

-
Phil Randal
Network Engineer
Herefordshire Council
Hereford, UK 

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 October 2001 13:09
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: FW: Trend Micro Medium Risk Virus Alert - PE_NIMDA.E
> 
> 
> FYI
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Trend Virus Info [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:04 PM
> To: Martin Blackstone
> Subject: Trend Micro Medium Risk Virus Alert - PE_NIMDA.E
> 
> 
> Trend Micro Medium Risk Virus Alert - PE_NIMDA.E
> 
> Dear Trend Micro Customer:
> 
> PE_NIMDA.E is a fast-spreading Internet worm and file infector that
> arrives via email, as an attachment called SAMPLE.EXE. It employs
> various infection mechanisms and exploits several known 
> vulnerabilities.
> 
> 
> Like the original variant, PE_NIMDA.A, it has four modes of 
> propagation:
> through email, through network shared drives, through un-patched IIS
> servers, and through file infection. 
> 
> The main difference between this variant and PE_NIMDA.A are 
> the names of
> three of its dropped files. However, similar to the original variant,
> the names of the dropped executables are names of valid system files. 
> 
> PE_NIMDA.E is detected by pattern file #161 or #961. 
> 
> For more information on PE_NIMDA.E please visit our Web site at:
> http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName
=PE_NIMDAE



**
You are receiving this email from Trend Micro, because you have either
downloaded a Trend Micro product or have signed up for our "Virus
Alerts." If you would like to change the way you receive email from
Trend Micro please make changes in your account page at
http://www.antivirus.com/subscriptions/default.asp?email=mblackstone@sup
erioraccess.net
 
To UNSUBSCRIBE go to:
http://www.antivirus.com/subscriptions/default.asp?format=unsubscribe
 
For questions regarding viruses, please contact the Virus Doctor at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
For questions regarding products, please contact Tech Support at
[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]