RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

[Schwartz, Jim]

Gift - Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation
Award - To grant as merited or due 
Compensation - Something, such as money, given or received as payment or
reparation, as for a service or loss.

I don't see MVP status as being a gift. Seems to me that it would be an
award for people that spend their own time (cost of time is greater than
hard cash) to help others understand technology. In many cases I have seen
most of the MVP's give their time and efforts to helping people understand
what they are already running (Exchange) in Exchange related newsgroups and
lists.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics

How am I changing position? I have always stated that the problem with MVP
is that it is a gift. If you paid for it and it were not a gift, then it is
something that you PAID for, just like MCSE or any other certification.
Explain how this is a change in my point of view?

> You've never proven that it is a breach of ethics, much less 
> egregious.  And your admission of even a slight change of your point 
> of view shows just how fatuous your argument is.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler
> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:41 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> 
> Well, you're missing the big picture and the whole point, but yes, if 
> you paid Microsoft, even one dollar, then it would not be such an 
> egregious breach of ethics.
> 
> > So how fundamentally different is paying Microsoft to be a Partner 
> > than being an MVP?  It's true that I don't pay actual money to be an 
> > MVP, but I do work for it.  Don't you have to sign lots of agreement 
> > papers to be a Partner?  Do you give all your customers copies of 
> > those papers so they can assess the level of conflict of interest?  
> > So if I send Microsoft a dollar for my MVP status, the conflict of 
> > interest
> ends?
> > 
> > You still haven't proven your assertion that my accepting the small 
> > gratuity and title associated with MVP constitutes a conflict of 
> > interest.  Your only proof so far is along the lines of, "It's 
> > obvious," or "It is because I say it is."
> > Perhaps it's because you can't prove it?
> > 
> > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
> > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
> > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg 
> > Deckler
> > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 8:51 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Greg's Utterly Fascinating Views on Ethics
> > 
> > First, you have no credibility on the point. You find the phrase "I 
> > finish them (fights)" offensive but not someone being called a 
> > "liar", "stupid", "idiot", "wife beater". You simply have zaro
credibility.
> > 
> > Second, as for your other two points, our customers and potential 
> > customers are made well aware of any and all potential conflicts of 
> > interest. We practice full disclosure. In addition, meeting with a 
> > vendor to talk about their new products is in no way even CLOSE to 
> > accepting a title or gift from said vendor. But, there is no point 
> > to even debating this with you because you are never going to see it 
> > because
> you are going to deny the obvious.
> > Yes, I have to deal with vendors just like everyone else in this
industry.
> > It is a fact of life. But, I don't have to like it and no, 
> > generally, I almost NEVER meet with vendors and when I do, it is for 
> > specific purposes, I get in, get the information and get out.
> > 
> > Finally, you have obviously shown your bias by claiming that I claim 
> > to be the "all ethical" sort. And to my knowledge, I have no "ethics 
> > test" that I have created. This is a blatant mis-characterization 
> > and
> exposes your bias.
> > I am not, nor ever will be "all ethical" and "holier than thou". I 
> > have
> > *different* ethics apparently than many on this board, but I have 
> > never claimed to be perfect or that my ethics are the end all, be all.
> > Yes, I have paid to attend conventions, I have paid to be a 
> > Microsoft "partner". In some strict ethical vaccuum those may be 
> > considered unethical, but this is the real world. And besides that, 
> > there is a clear, bright line between paying a vendor to attend a 
> > convention and accepting a pure gift from a vendor. That bright line 
> > is what I have been talking about, but you are never going to see it 
> > because you will never admit to the obvious and just want to pick a
fight.
> > 
> > And yes, for all of you out there, I am nearly certain that, in my

RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail

[Schwartz, Jim]

How much mail can Exchange process? A lot.

If you understand how an e-mail is handled with Exchange SMTP services, you
can design the server (include memory, processor and disk layout) you can
make it fly.

I stress tested the IIS SMTP to see what I could get out of it. I rated the
box at over 500k messages an hour before I ran out of equipment to send and
receive e-mail. The gateway box wasn't stressed very hard so I don't know
what the real upper limit was. I would guess somewhere in the 800k to 1m
range. [1]

Sendmail is overkill for 99.9% of the systems out there. Not because of
speed, but because of it's complexity. With the Sendmail configuration
files, I can do just about anything to an e-mail or with an e-mail that you
can think of. The issue is the complexity. Most organizations don't need
that kind of granularity in their configurations and want a simple potato
passer for the gateway.

Tell your *nix person to educate himself or have a nice warm cup...

[1] I wish that Microsoft would take some of the queue utilities that
Exchange gives you and allow me to add them just to IIS SMTP. Then it could
be a viable gateway solution.

-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:18 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail

Tell him Postfix is more secure...  :P

Personally, I like to put another server at the edge for SMTP that is NOT
Exchange when I can...

As far as who's faster at processing...  Who cares, can Sendmail do
calendaring, public folders, etc? 

-Original Message-
From: Sean Faust [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail Processing by Exchange vs. SendMail

Good Morning All,

I have a Unix/Linux admin that is just wearing me out with regards to
Exchanging being 3rd rate.  Given all of the variables including memory,
processors, etc.  How much mail traffic can Exchange process in an hour/day
and what is the advantage if any of putting SendMail in front of Exchange?

His last statement was that SendMail can process more mail in one minute
than Exchagne can process in a day.

Thanks,

Sean

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

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

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

RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

[Schwartz, Jim]

This is also a good site to look at if you need to figure out issues with
DNS.
http://www.dnsreport.com/

-Original Message-
From: Chinnery, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:10 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

Cool site.  Thanks for posting, Don.

Paul Chinnery
Network Administrator
Mem Med Ctr


-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 7:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server


Looking good from network-tools.com as well...  You might want to bookmark
that site, it comes in very handy for the likes of these problems... 

-Original Message-
From: Niki Blowfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 2:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

:) ok thanks for the help

Our DNS is provided by our ISP, I guess I need to ring them and find out
whats going on, we changed about a week ago and instructed they change our
MX, I assume it should be fine by now?

When I test it from here I get the new IP, so some servers are aware (and
this is my home connection, which is on a different ISP to the corporate, so
different DNS servers)

Thanks again

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone
Sent: 11 December 2003 21:38
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

Roh roh 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

I see 62.49.146.170...

www.network-tools.com sees:

IP address: 62.49.146.170
Host name: mailgate.partition.co.uk

Alias:
no-dns-yet.demon.co.uk

Your DNS is outta whack 

-Original Message-
From: Niki Blowfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

Hi Don

What address do you see as my MX?

It should be 80.176.164.194

Thanks a lot for the help



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ely, Don
Sent: 11 December 2003 18:57
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

It's not your Exchange server if your MX record points to your FW.  I
telnetted to your MX and the connection failed... 

-Original Message-
From: Niki Blowfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

Hi there

Yeah, the public and private IPs/NAT are all setup as is port forwarding,
has been working for ages, no idea why its stopped now

I think over the weekend I'll move the Exchange Server outside the firewall
and see what happens

Anything I can check on the Exch server?

thanks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone
Sent: 11 December 2003 15:10
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

I'm assuming the external interface on the SW has a public IP and the
internal interface has a private IP and you are attempting to NAT you
connection.
In the Sonicwall, under the advanced setting, you should have it setup under
one-to-one NAT the public/private translation for your Exchange server. Then
under Access have a rule to allow port 25 to that private address.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Niki Blowfield
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP mail not reaching Exchange Server

Hi,
 
Running MS Exchange Server 5.5 SP4 on Windows NT4
 
Single server environment, server sits on private address behind Sonicwall
ProVX firewall
 
Firewall forwards all SMTP to this server which has the IMC, has worked fine
for a number of years
 
Mail has stopped reaching mailboxes, and doesnt appear to be reaching the
Exchange Server at all
 
I would ordinarily suspect the firewall, but you can telnet to our
mailserver successfully and send an email from there
 
Our MX record points to mailgate.partition.co.uk which resolves to our
Sonicwall ProVX
 
Any ideas? I dont know a great deal about the Sonicwall
 
I guess i could move the NT server temporarily to outside the firewall and
give it the address of mailgate.partition.co.uk to see if i can eliminate
the firewall
 
Thanks
 
Nik



_
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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Schwartz, Jim]

http://www.doctorupdate.net/du_awards/category.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2093852.stm
http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/drugcompaniesprofiles.htm
http://www.globalaging.org/health/us/curb2.htm

To the AMA's credit they seem to be concerned, but the last article shows
that little will be done about it.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I will restate this for seemingly the
11 millionth time. Accepting titles FROM VENDORS is bad and unprofessional.

> Actually, degree DOES equal title.
> 
> One day, I am just ordinary old Jim Blunt.  The next day Washington 
> State Univ. bestows an honorary doctorate in Computer Engineering, due 
> to some mythical contributions I have made to the industry.
> 
> My signature would now read:
> 
> DR. James Blunt, Computer Engineer
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I would expect that to be the extent of your research.
> 
> degree <> title
> 
> > "check out other professions and their views on accepting honorary 
> > titles."
> > 
> > 
> > Dr. receives honorary degree
> > lawyer receives honorary degree
> > 
> > Just for reference.

_
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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Schwartz, Jim]

Interestingly enough you state that you are a professional and yet make a
statement like that. I in no way have attacked you and only posted those
(and another link) on professionals and ethics. My statement was not an
attack, only a point of reference. If you remember, I was also the only
person to respond to your list challenge about your book that followed
through.

You've belittled me without reason or cause. Very professional of you.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 2:22 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

Well, yes, I would expect that to be the extent of your research.

degree <> title

> "check out other professions and their views on accepting honorary
titles."
> 
> 
> Dr. receives honorary degree
> lawyer receives honorary degree
> 
> Just for reference.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:25 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

_
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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Schwartz, Jim]

Some more information on Professional Ethic

http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/professional/lecture_professions&professionaliz
ation2.html

For those with any interest.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

I did not say what you say I said.

What I said was that, in my opinion, accepting honorary titles from vendors
is a conflict of interest and something that should be avoided by those who
are, or; technically, consider themselves, professional IT people. That is
my opinion. And this is not just my opinion, check out other professions and
their views on accepting honorary titles. Go educate yourself on the subject
matter.

Now, the other thing that you are incorrect in is that I did not bring this
subject up. This subject came up years and years ago back around
1996/1997 during normal list discussions. It is not like I just started
blasting people out of the blue. However, it seems that every time I post to
this list somebody is still holding a grudge from 1996/1997 and brings this
subject up. Once it is brought up, I will state my opinion and defend it.

Money is simply the physical manifestation of ego and thus there is no
difference between the two. I hold myself to my own professional code of
conduct. I have no idea if it is better or different or "longer" than anyone
else's. It is mine and that is all I know.

> No, You are wrong.
> 
> Explain to me how you can tell someone that they are unethical AND not 
> expect it to be taken as an insult.  You feel justified in your 
> position and that is fine.  When you come into a public forum and say 
> that anyone who is an MVP is unethical, you cannot expect MVPs to take 
> it any other way than an insult.  By making your opinions as a 
> statement, you have committed catagorical slander on a group of people YOU
DON'T EVEN KNOW.
> 
> If you had said that you disagree with vendor recognition, but that 
> MVPs do a lot of good for the Microsoft community (this discussion 
> list being a prime example), then you would be airing your opinion 
> with out discrediting the good work that some MVPs do.  Can you really 
> blame anyone for accepting recognition?  It is human nature to want and
deserve laud and attention.
> 
> It is obvious that you measure yourself a much longer moral yardstick 
> than the rest of us.  Perhaps you should start your own Exchange list 
> for-the-morally-upright to keep these reactions from happening in the 
> future.
> 
> Eric Fretz
> 
> L-3 Communications
> ComCept Division
> 2800 Discovery Blvd.
> Rockwall, TX 75032
> tel:   972.772.7501
> fax:  972.772.7510
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=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: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

[Schwartz, Jim]

"check out other professions and their views on accepting honorary titles."


Dr. receives honorary degree
lawyer receives honorary degree

Just for reference.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5

I did not say what you say I said.

What I said was that, in my opinion, accepting honorary titles from vendors
is a conflict of interest and something that should be avoided by those who
are, or; technically, consider themselves, professional IT people. That is
my opinion. And this is not just my opinion, check out other professions and
their views on accepting honorary titles. Go educate yourself on the subject
matter.

Now, the other thing that you are incorrect in is that I did not bring this
subject up. This subject came up years and years ago back around
1996/1997 during normal list discussions. It is not like I just started
blasting people out of the blue. However, it seems that every time I post to
this list somebody is still holding a grudge from 1996/1997 and brings this
subject up. Once it is brought up, I will state my opinion and defend it.

Money is simply the physical manifestation of ego and thus there is no
difference between the two. I hold myself to my own professional code of
conduct. I have no idea if it is better or different or "longer" than anyone
else's. It is mine and that is all I know.

> No, You are wrong.
> 
> Explain to me how you can tell someone that they are unethical AND not 
> expect it to be taken as an insult.  You feel justified in your 
> position and that is fine.  When you come into a public forum and say 
> that anyone who is an MVP is unethical, you cannot expect MVPs to take 
> it any other way than an insult.  By making your opinions as a 
> statement, you have committed catagorical slander on a group of people YOU
DON'T EVEN KNOW.
> 
> If you had said that you disagree with vendor recognition, but that 
> MVPs do a lot of good for the Microsoft community (this discussion 
> list being a prime example), then you would be airing your opinion 
> with out discrediting the good work that some MVPs do.  Can you really 
> blame anyone for accepting recognition?  It is human nature to want and
deserve laud and attention.
> 
> It is obvious that you measure yourself a much longer moral yardstick 
> than the rest of us.  Perhaps you should start your own Exchange list 
> for-the-morally-upright to keep these reactions from happening in the 
> future.
> 
> Eric Fretz
> 
> L-3 Communications
> ComCept Division
> 2800 Discovery Blvd.
> Rockwall, TX 75032
> tel:   972.772.7501
> fax:  972.772.7510
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=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: OWA Design Question

[Schwartz, Jim]

You can use ISA. It's not that hard to set up and works well. Added bonus
for those with the need is the ability to add RSA authentication to the ISA
server. Users must use a key fob to authenticate before they even get to the
OWA boxes. You can also use another type of proxy server (Squid for
instance) to proxy the connection from the DMZ.

-Original Message-
From: Bailey, Matthew [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OWA Design Question


If you publish OWA through ISA, all you need to open outbound to the
internet is 80 and/or 443 for OWA to function.

If you place a FE server in the DMZ you still have to open 80 and/or 443
outbound to the Internet and open 389, 3268, 88, 53, 135, 1024+ back to your
BE Exchange servers.

At least that is the way I understand it.

 - Matt

-Original Message-
From: Clemens, Rick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 4:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OWA Design Question

Exchange 2000 SP3
Windows 2000 SP4

I am sitting here reading the PDF "Using Microsoft Exchange 2000 Front-End
Servers" trying to get a feel for how I should set up OWA access from the
internet for my company.  Currently we have an Exchange 5.5 OWA server in a
DMZ with port 443 open from the internet or external side and on the
internal side open to the DC's and Exchange ServersI know, I know not
very secure.The document gives me several scenarios but the ones I am
interested in are Front-End Server in a Perimeter Network and Advance
Firewall in a Perimeter Network.

With the Front-End scenario I have to open 389, 3268, 88, 53, 135, 1024+ or
statically map the RPC service Port.  This seems easy enough to do but it
sucks having to swiss cheese the firewall.  Of course Microsoft recommends
the Advance Firewall Scenario (ISA Server)


My question is has anyone setup ISA in a DMZ?  Is it better?  What are the
benefits?  I still have to have ports 389, 88, 53, and 443 open for
authentication and such so what do I gain except for not having to open up
RPC ports?  I am looking at this from the perspective of talking management
into spending the $3000 on the software.belts are tight so there really
has to be a good reason.  And we already have a proxy server and management
doesn't want to replace it so this would be specific to making OWA access
more secure.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Rick sends
-Original Message-
From: Petschow, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA segmentation feature

Here is a link that will take you to the values for Exchange 2003 OWA
segmentation. http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange2003/appendixc.asp


Jeff



> -Original Message-
> From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:18 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 OWA segmentation feature
> 
> 
> Hee hee hee
>   I think I have that book somewhere...
> 
>   Actually, the settings have changed between E2K and E2K3.  I
think 
> there are a few more things you can turn on/off in E2K3. 
> Unfortunately, no one seems to know what the settings are.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday,
> August 11, 2003 11:34 AM Posted To: Exchange Technical Mailing List
> Conversation: Exchange 2003 OWA segmentation feature
> Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 OWA segmentation feature
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it's a registry key that is set. When set affects all users of
> that domain however you can also set for an individual that will 
> overide the system setting. 1024 is for all folders to show up. I have

> the settings at work but are also available on MS's site via 
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;311154 If you 
> need the exact settings they are in the book Exchange 24/7 by Jm McBee
> 
> From: "McBee, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Exchange 2003 OWA segmentation feature
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:01:25 -1000
> 
> Hi everyone:
>  I'm looking for some information on a feature in Exchange 2003
> and I have used up all of my ideas on how to find out more info.  It 
> was called OWA segmentation in Exchange 2000 and was introduced in 
> Exchange 2000 SP2.  It allowed you to turn off public folders, the 
> calendar, contacts, etc.. for certain users.  This was either a 
> registry key or an attribute you had to add to the W2K AD.  However, 
> it is included in E2K3's schema extensions.
> 
>  However, I cannot find ANY information on the actual values.  It
> is essentially a bit mask, but I can't figure out what the bits mean.
> Below is the only text I have been able to find on it, and this was in

> the release notes.  The schema attribute name is:

RE: Tumbleweed

[Schwartz, Jim]

IIRC they've changed their pricing structure from per seat to per proc.

Huge difference. Why don't you call them and find out.

-Original Message-
From: Hague, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Tumbleweed


So in todays-money, I can excpect 3 Ferrari's and maybe a Mercedes rag-top
or two? I think I have them laying around Physical Plant. Maybe I can keep 1
of the Mercs if I scrub the support...

Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Tumbleweed


Back in 1998 when we implemented it for 20,000 users at Credit Suisse,
Tumbleweed with the SEC-compliant Message Archival cost roughly a couple of
Ferraris (including support)

Sincerely,

Andrey Fyodorov
Systems Engineer
Messaging and Collaboration
Spherion


-Original Message-
From: Hague, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:34 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Tumbleweed

Anyone know offhand what a Tumbleweed appliance would cost (roughly) for
1500 mailboxes?

Jeff Hague
Network Manager
MCSE
Randolph-Macon College
Ashland, VA

-Original Message-
From: John Q Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 10:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Tumbleweed


Yes.
Exchange 2K
FE/BE Topology
900 users

- Original Message - 
From: "internet.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 4:53 PM
Subject: Tumbleweed


Has anyone used tumbleweed with Exchange 2000?

Thanks

Richard Tracy

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

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

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




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

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

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

A Challenge responded to - Review of "Achieving Process Profitabi lity"

[Schwartz, Jim]

I received and read this book (closer to a booklet than a book) Friday. The
author does a fairly good job of translating some basic TQM principles as
they relate to IT. The book is an easy read but could have used more real
world scenarios to emphasize certain points. As far as the philosophy of the
author goes, I feel that Greg has highlighted some of the failures that many
IT people make in their assumptions as to their role in an organization. (I
won't get into great detail as I'll leave other people who may be interested
in forming their own opinions.) I've called it the Mainframe Mentality in
the past. Build it and they will come has no place in IT anymore. His
assumptions as to role in IT I've feel he got it partially correct, but
missed some things as well. Automation of manual process is important, but
the I in IT does stand for something that the author failed to talk about at
all. There is another area that I feel that was missed entirely. The
importance of have a strong, flexible and reliable infrastructure. Most of
the focus at the end of the book was (to me) from the point of view of an
application developer and most of the points are valid. However, developers
must have an strong infrastructure to develop on. This is one of the most
difficult concepts for IT to sell to the money managers.

Overall I'd rate the booklet "Fair". For those not familiar with TQM or ITIL
it is a basic introduction to some of those concepts. For those who what to
delve deeper into those concepts, I'd suggest reading "The Deming Management
Method" and "The 5 Pillars of TQM". The ITIL website also has information on
IT Service Management. http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=2261
 


This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not
represent BB&T in any way.


_
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: A CHALLENGE to the List

[Schwartz, Jim]

Now THAT is funny.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:28 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A CHALLENGE to the List


Send it on, I'll return it at my own expense once I am done lest one
consider that I took compensation in form of a free book and tainted my
review as a result.


Chris Scharff
9420 Research Blvd
Suite 330
Austin, TX 78759

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:23 PM
Posted To: swynk
Conversation: A CHALLENGE to the List
Subject: A CHALLENGE to the List

Well, it appears that a number of individuals from this list have chosen to
engage in childish and cowardly ad hominem attacks on myself and Achieving
Process Profitability: Building the IT Profit Center without ever even
reading a single page of it. I have been in contact with Amazon.com so these
"reviews" will be removed in the near future. I could take this opportunity
to opine about how unprofessional, unfair, childish and cowardly this is,
but instead I offer this challenge:

I will send you a copy of my Achieving Process Profitability at my own
expense for you to review. All that I ask in return is that you actually
read Achieving Process Profitability and post an honest, impartial review of
it's contents, not your personal prejudices, to Amazon.com and this list. I
will only respond to indivuals that publicly accept my challenge on this
list, just respond to this message and then privately email me your name and
address.

I have a limited supply of books so I will accept the first 10-12 responses
to this challenge. All fair-minded individuals will accept this challenge
and the rest of the "pompous bags of gas" will be exposed for what they are.

_
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: A CHALLENGE to the List

[Schwartz, Jim]

Deal

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: A CHALLENGE to the List


Well, it appears that a number of individuals from this list have chosen to
engage in childish and cowardly ad hominem attacks on myself and Achieving
Process Profitability: Building the IT Profit Center without ever even
reading a single page of it. I have been in contact with Amazon.com so these
"reviews" will be removed in the near future. I could take this opportunity
to opine about how unprofessional, unfair, childish and cowardly this is,
but instead I offer this challenge:

I will send you a copy of my Achieving Process Profitability at my own
expense for you to review. All that I ask in return is that you actually
read Achieving Process Profitability and post an honest, impartial review of
it's contents, not your personal prejudices, to Amazon.com and this list. I
will only respond to indivuals that publicly accept my challenge on this
list, just respond to this message and then privately email me your name and
address.

I have a limited supply of books so I will accept the first 10-12 responses
to this challenge. All fair-minded individuals will accept this challenge
and the rest of the "pompous bags of gas" will be exposed for what they are.

_
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: Exchange and SAN

[Schwartz, Jim]

I'll kindly ask you to get off of my soapbox.

My favorite one I've heard lately: "Well, it uses fiber to attach to the SAN
so it's much faster for Exchange."

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 2:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange and SAN


As long as you don't buy into the great white lie of SAN's, you're golden.

That lie is that there's no performance hit created by taking a single large
array and carving it into a bunch of LUNs - there's a physics issue there.
Other than that, its just a bunch of disks, just like the SCSI attached ones
you probably have now.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Rosales, Mario [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Exchange and SAN
> 
> 
> Has anyone ran Exchange in a SAN, and were there any issues
> with it?  I've
> always had a raid array attached to it which could be the 
> same thing but did
> not know if there were any major differences?  Any help would 
> be appreciate
> it.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mario
> 
> 
> **
> *
>  The contents of this communication are intended only for the 
> addressee and
> may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you 
> are not the
> intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this
> communication and notify the sender.  Opinions, conclusions and other
> information in this communication that do not relate to the official
> business of my company shall be understood as neither given 
> nor endorsed by
> it.  
> **
> * 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 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: RPC over HTTP Compatibility

[Schwartz, Jim]

Finally tossed out the pink sundress?

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: RPC over HTTP Compatibility


That's no rumor, I'm wearing a pair now with my leather shorts.

> From: "Tony Hlabse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:02:10 -0400
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: RPC over HTTP Compatibility
> 
> I heard a rumor too that knee high white socks with stripes on top are 
> coming back.
> 
> 
> From: "Berry Schreuder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RPC over HTTP Compatibility
> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 05:16:08 -0700
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have heard that RPC over HTTP can also work in a non Windows 2003 
> only environment.
> 
> Microsoft whitepapers state that besides EX2K3 on W2K3 you also need 
> W2K3 on your DC's and GC's. Now i have heard rumours that you only 
> need one server running on W2K3 with RPC Proxy service installed.
> 
> This way you should for instance be able to run EX2K3 on W2K
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this?
> 
> Berry Schreuder
> 
> _
> 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
=e
> nglish
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> _
> Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> 
> _
> 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
=e
> nglish
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL 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: Notes vs. Exchange

[Schwartz, Jim]

I could scan the archives for some of the questions asked here and prove you
wrong, but I'd rather go drink a beer.

-Original Message-
From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Notes vs. Exchange


There is a whole mailing list of these dime-a-dozens :)



-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 8:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Notes vs. Exchange

"Microsoft Exchange engineers are a dime a dozen"

Good ones are difficult to find and even more difficult to pry away from
their current employer. After interviewing Exchange "admins" over the last
few years I've found that most people that put Exchange experience on their
resume have added or deleted a mailbox, or maybe built a server or two. Out
of five I interviewed one time, only 1 could give me the steps performed by
Exchange to route an e-mail message to the internet. I wasn't even asking
for real detail and only 1 could answer it.

Getting someone that can design a large scale implementation of Exchange is
even harder to do.

-Original Message-
From: norem0rz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Notes vs. Exchange


Well, this probably won't be quite as technical as you want... but it is
what I have experienced. Lotus notes - No decent support in the channel
(premium support) - core product has not been substancially updated in
years, but has an update every month... requires a heafty subscrition fee.
Microsoft Exchange - Ex engineers are a dime a dozen, MS has Excellent
support. Documeantation O' Plenty. Client requires only network logon, not a
file to access thier data (ever have a Notes user loose that file and you
realize there is no backup - a NIGHTMARE!) Exchange does not have the file
management that Notes does, but if that is not being utilized it is
definately worth going to Exchange. Especially that Domino server is the
most ass backwards program that I have ever run into...but that's just my 2
cents :)

_
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: Notes vs. Exchange

[Schwartz, Jim]

"Microsoft Exchange engineers are a dime a dozen"

Good ones are difficult to find and even more difficult to pry away from
their current employer. After interviewing Exchange "admins" over the last
few years I've found that most people that put Exchange experience on their
resume have added or deleted a mailbox, or maybe built a server or two. Out
of five I interviewed one time, only 1 could give me the steps performed by
Exchange to route an e-mail message to the internet. I wasn't even asking
for real detail and only 1 could answer it.

Getting someone that can design a large scale implementation of Exchange is
even harder to do.

-Original Message-
From: norem0rz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 2:13 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Notes vs. Exchange


Well, this probably won't be quite as technical as you want... but it is
what I have experienced. Lotus notes - No decent support in the channel
(premium support) - core product has not been substancially updated in
years, but has an update every month... requires a heafty subscrition fee.
Microsoft Exchange - Ex engineers are a dime a dozen, MS has Excellent
support. Documeantation O' Plenty. Client requires only network logon, not a
file to access thier data (ever have a Notes user loose that file and you
realize there is no backup - a NIGHTMARE!) Exchange does not have the file
management that Notes does, but if that is not being utilized it is
definately worth going to Exchange. Especially that Domino server is the
most ass backwards program that I have ever run into...but that's just my 2
cents :)

_
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: AD Discussion Forum?

[Schwartz, Jim]

http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm

-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:55 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: AD Discussion Forum?


There is also a AD discussion list over at Sunbelt Software. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Stephen Grant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:54 PM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: AD Discussion Forum?
Subject: RE: AD Discussion Forum?


Caution, link may wrap.

http://support.microsoft.com/newsgroups/default.aspx?NewsGroup=microsoft
.public.win2000.active_directory&SLCID=US&ICP=GSS3&sd=GN&id=fh;en-us;new
sgroups

-Steve

-Original Message-
From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:50 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: AD Discussion Forum?


Anyone know of a good Active Directory discussion forum?  The forum has been
so helpful and I need one for Active Directory.

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&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: Routine Maintenance

[Schwartz, Jim]

There was an excellent explanation by Ed Woodrick on the topic of compacting
the Exchange store back on March 15, 2002 if you'd like to look in the
archives.

Unless asked for, I won't repost it.

-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Routine Maintenance


Not that I have seen.  From what I know MS Exchange just treats this as
space to stuff more stuff into.

Nate Couch
EDS Messaging

> --
> From: Fyodorov, Andrey
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:52 AM
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  RE: Routine Maintenance
> 
> Does large amount of white space increases chances of corruption?
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:39 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Routine Maintenance
> 
> Well we have about 20GB of white space right now.  I unfortunately 
> have to waste the time to do one.
> 
> Alex
> -Original Message-
> From: Fyodorov, Andrey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 4:46 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> I have had 2GB+ of whitespace
> 
> But I still woudn't waste time on doing an offline defrag
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:36 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Routine Maintenance
> 
> Why should you do offline backups?  What's the reasoning besides just 
> you should do them?
> 
> The only time that I would do an offline backup is if I was going to 
> do a major upgrade that required stopping the Exchange services 
> anyway. Other than that, doing an offline backup is silly.  It causes 
> an unnecessary interruption in uptime.
> 
> As for offline defrag, I've never done one, don't ever plan on doing 
> one.  As long as you've got plenty of storage space, and are within 
> your backup window, it's just not worth it.  The only times that 
> offline defrags are of any value are if you've made a massive amount 
> of deletions and want to reclaim the white space (largest amount of 
> whitespace I remember hearing about was 90gb of whitespace) or if you 
> are close to the 16gb limit in the Standard edition and need to stall
> while you purchase the Enterprise edition.   
> 
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Monday, July 21, 2003 1:35 PM
> Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: Routine Maintenance
> Subject: RE: Routine Maintenance
> 
> 
> You should do offline backups too though. It's just when to do them. 
> They take a long time.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Mellott, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:33 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> me Im no guru like the other people here...
> so I let the server do it
> Exchange does the defrag itselfso to me Defrag..done...check 
> Backup... my backup goes  every night -full Backup...check done (note 
> NO
> BLB!!)
> my Exchange awhere AV checks for it's updates every 4 hours...check
> done...
> 
> My Exch55sp4 box, NT4Sp6a+post, veritas 8.6, DLT drive, CPQ 1850R It 
> run's run's and run's
> 
> OK once it a great while I reboot it
> some times I look at my log's..some times I dont
> 
> If I had my act together all the time..Id do a test DR once in a 
> while...or so...
> 
> I try not to fix it if it aint broke...
> now where is that hammer..
> 
> bill
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Bridges, Samantha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 2:26 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Routine Maintenance
> 
> 
> Hello All.
> 
> Just curious what kind of maintenance you all do on Exchange and what 
> kind of schedule for maintenance is best or recommended.
> 
> Is the only maintenance running an Offline Defrag once a month?
> 
> Exchange 5.5 sp4
> Windows 2000 Advanced Server
> Outlook 2000/XP clients
> 
> 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&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_fa

RE: .Pst on OWA?

[Schwartz, Jim]

A... A financial institution.

One of the nice features of KVS is the ability to allow your compliance
officers to search only those mailboxes for the areas that they are
responsible for. It cuts way down on the false positives that will happen
with more common words. It also allows you to push the responsibility of
looking at the data to the owners of the data. You only need to provide them
with the proper access rights and if you manage it well, that means very
little work for you in the long run.

One of the largest problems that I encounter during an investigation or
discovery is that I have no idea what they are looking for. I'm not a
securities specialist. I'm not a investment banker. I'm not even a financial
person. I can't decide what is appropriate for the workplace and what isn't.
This allows you to let them manage that and you have time to do your job.


-Original Message-
From: Carmila Fresco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: .Pst on OWA?


I've actually downloaded their demo but I haven't got around to playing with
it on my test lab.  

It hasn't really been an administrative nightmare ever since we moved the
pst files to a central location.  Though it does need a lot of cooperation
from the user community and intervention from IT. 


-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

That's fine. PST's aren't a good way to comply with those regulations
though, because then you still lose both administrative control of that data
as well as the ability to back it up.

There's this cool product from Kvault that is designed to address those
issues though...

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -Original Message-
> From: Carmila Fresco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:54 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: .Pst on OWA?
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for me, we can't force people to delete email messages
> because of different regulations that we need to comply with.  We need

> to comply with a 3 year regulation and a 7 year regulation.
> 
> I understand that you loose single instance store on PST files and has

> a lot of quirks but we have a handful of users that have 3GB mailboxes

> and are asking us why it's taking so long to open up their mailbox
> when they are in remote locations.  We are currently not using an 
> archiving solution but are looking into it.  In our current situation,

> we've been using pst's in small doses for people that have extremely
> large mailboxes.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 10:40 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> By setting limits on them...they tend to motivate people to clean up
> their mail, especially when you don't allow them to send mail once 
> they are over their limit.
> -
> 
> Ben Winzenz
> Network Engineer
> Gardner & White
> (317) 581-1580 ext 418
> 
> Original Message-
> From: Carmila Fresco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Posted At: Friday, June 20, 2003 12:34 PM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
> Conversation: .Pst on OWA?
> Subject: RE: .Pst on OWA?
> 
> 
> I'm curious... How do you keep the size of the mailboxes down?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Public Folder: Exchange [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 6:21 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> 
> > > Anyone knows that can OWA in 2k or 2k3 able to open .pst?
> > >
> > > Decide to close POP3, it will have problem on limited
> mailbox space.
> 
> > a newbie, you think?
> 
> Um PST=BAD!!!
> 
> -Kevin
> 
> _
> 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 message may contain information that is confidential and
> proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party.  If you are not the 
> intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original

> and any copies of the original message.  Babcock & Brown takes
> measures to protect the content of its communications.  However, 
> Babcock & Brown cannot guarantee that email messages will not be 
> intercepted by third parties or that email messages will be free of 
> errors or viruses.
> 
> 
> _
> 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:  

RE: Scan Gateway

[Schwartz, Jim]

Actually it would be. You could turn off AV scanning on your Exchange
servers (for a short time) while the issue was corrected with a bad virus
definition. You could also allow the mail traffic to pass directly to your
Exchange servers if the gateway goes bad. Same process for a path of upgrade
issue. You have it even easier as the gateway product and the Exchange AV
product are from 2 vendors. One of them is bound to catch the virus even if
the other fails.

-Original Message-
From: Fioon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway



My Environment:-
The first stage of external email scan will be on the DMZ (Trend Micro
Server Gateway). Email flow from Internet to Firewall and pass to Trend
Server in DMZ to do the content scanning and email will be flow back to the
Firewall again, and then flow into the Internal Net (Exchange Server) and go
through the second AV Scan inside the Exch Server. 

Exchange Server itself located inside the Internal Net will have AV
Exchange(Symantec) installed to be the second scanning stage or to be the
internally email scan.


So in this scenario, your 2 points cant be justify because I still have one
AV in the Exchange that might have your 2 points problem.

thanks

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 9:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


Currently we're the same way.
There are two other advantages of having a dedicated gateway scanner. It's
typical for the AV vendors to have one or two bad virus definition files a
year. I've seen them totally hose up a box when they're real bad. If you
have that at the gateway, your internal mail flow will still work while you
repair the gateway. People may notice that they are not getting internet
mail, but won't be screaming as loud as if you took their mailbox server off
line.

Second advantage is upgrade path. Since the gateway is a separate box and
passes all mail via SMTP, you can upgrade the antivirus or the Exchange
system separately from each other without impact. If you needed to install a
hotfix for Exchange or the OS, you can do so without having the extra
variable of the antivirus product in the mix.

Costs are always a concern with the ducks, but the AV gateway doesn't need
to be a huge server. We ran a dual 500mhz, 500GB RAM with two disk arrays on
our inbound server and were handling around 100k messages a day on it. It
rated about 5000 an hour before we upgraded to a larger server. That server
may run you about 3-4k depending on your vendor but you probably wouldn't
need that something even that large.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


At TechEd, one of the MS dudes told us that MS doesn't use AV on the mail
servers at all. All email is scanned by gateway servers.

Maybe he will like that. "We can be just like MS" 

-Original Message-
From: Fioon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway

Thanks everyone. But but but.. pardon me that these point is good for IT
Engineer but not to management whereby there will ask Q such as, even though
in same box, it will still be able to capture and hold the email if BE is
down. They never care about the problem of crashes, upgrade etc. :) so I was
thinking any reason that's I never thought of and of cox it should be valid
to scare management off so that they agree to have it on dedicated box... 

Thanks ...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


Correct. Another nice thing about the gateway on a separate box is that it
give you a place to capture and hold email if you need to bring your
Exchange boxes down for anything. It sits there nice and pretty and when
Exchange comes back up, the mail goes in. 

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Scan Gateway

Simply because its the easiest way to manage it. If it ever crashes or
requires maintenance or upgrading, it wont affect other services.

- Original Message -
From: "Fioon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


>
> Our Environment only have 275users internally, and another 50users 
> access from overseas using OWA or POP3. Do you have any reason why 
> should the gateway to be run on separate box?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wedn

RE: Changing the Domain on Outbound Messages

[Schwartz, Jim]

Custom recipient.

-Original Message-
From: Russell Hopkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 3:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Changing the Domain on Outbound Messages


Sorry, I guess I wasn't as clear as I'd thought:

We need to change the destination e-mail address for one external domain. 
For example, if our domain is xyz.com and one of our users ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
sends an e-mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], we want the message to
actually go out to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hope this clears up our issue.  Thanks.

> Sure. Add the email addy to each Exchange mailbox and then set it as 
> the default reply-to.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Russell Hopkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:24 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Changing the Domain on Outbound Messages
> 
> We have a need to change the domain name on certain outbound messages 
> (e.g., mail going out to [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be readdressed 
> to [EMAIL PROTECTED]).  I know this can be done for inbound 
> messages, but is there any way of accomplishing this for outbound 
> messages on 5.5?
> 
> _
> 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: Scan Gateway

[Schwartz, Jim]

Currently we're the same way.
There are two other advantages of having a dedicated gateway scanner. It's
typical for the AV vendors to have one or two bad virus definition files a
year. I've seen them totally hose up a box when they're real bad. If you
have that at the gateway, your internal mail flow will still work while you
repair the gateway. People may notice that they are not getting internet
mail, but won't be screaming as loud as if you took their mailbox server off
line.

Second advantage is upgrade path. Since the gateway is a separate box and
passes all mail via SMTP, you can upgrade the antivirus or the Exchange
system separately from each other without impact. If you needed to install a
hotfix for Exchange or the OS, you can do so without having the extra
variable of the antivirus product in the mix.

Costs are always a concern with the ducks, but the AV gateway doesn't need
to be a huge server. We ran a dual 500mhz, 500GB RAM with two disk arrays on
our inbound server and were handling around 100k messages a day on it. It
rated about 5000 an hour before we upgraded to a larger server. That server
may run you about 3-4k depending on your vendor but you probably wouldn't
need that something even that large.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 11:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


At TechEd, one of the MS dudes told us that MS doesn't use AV on the mail
servers at all. All email is scanned by gateway servers.

Maybe he will like that. "We can be just like MS" 

-Original Message-
From: Fioon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway

Thanks everyone. But but but.. pardon me that these point is good for IT
Engineer but not to management whereby there will ask Q such as, even though
in same box, it will still be able to capture and hold the email if BE is
down. They never care about the problem of crashes, upgrade etc. :) so I was
thinking any reason that's I never thought of and of cox it should be valid
to scare management off so that they agree to have it on dedicated box... 

Thanks ...

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:59 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


Correct. Another nice thing about the gateway on a separate box is that it
give you a place to capture and hold email if you need to bring your
Exchange boxes down for anything. It sits there nice and pretty and when
Exchange comes back up, the mail goes in. 

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Scan Gateway

Simply because its the easiest way to manage it. If it ever crashes or
requires maintenance or upgrading, it wont affect other services.

- Original Message -
From: "Fioon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: Scan Gateway


>
> Our Environment only have 275users internally, and another 50users
> access from overseas using OWA or POP3. Do you have any reason why 
> should the gateway to be run on separate box?
>
> Thanks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:31 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Scan Gateway
>
>
> I would advise to put your gateway on a separate box. I don't know how
> big your network is, but for 100 users, the gateway could be a simple PC.
>
> As for DNS, W2K/AD is all about DNS, DNS, DNS. Plan on having 2 DNS
servers.
> For that matter, plan on having 2 DC/GC's. So make each of those a DNS
> server as well.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Fioon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 6:45 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Scan Gateway
>
>
> We're in the exploring on the infrastructure on our Network to be
> ready
for
> Win2k. There are some area which is in question marks.
>
> Email Scanning Gateway to be places on the DMZ. e.g.
TrendMicro/Mailsweeper.
> Should it be place in different box or should it be place in the same
> box with the Front End Server? So far, we have been consult by 2 supplier.
>
> One said it's better to put different box, because put in one box with
> FE
is
> useless. Reason is if email came into the FE, and only then the Scan
Gateway
> scan the mail is too late. The virus already came into the FE, scan
> will
not
> help.
>
> And another one supplier said it's ok to put into same box with FE.
>
> Another question is for Win2k Environment, is DNS very important? Once
> DNS down, and no cache available, does it mean clients cannot log on 
> to the network?
>
> Thanks
> Fioon
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_fa

RE: Bulk Public Folder Replication?

[Schwartz, Jim]

You can use the propagate these properties to all subfolders to do bulk
moves to another server.

-Original Message-
From: Uso [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 8:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Bulk Public Folder Replication?


Hi,

is there an easy way to replicate a large number of public folders to
another server or do I have to click each single one and configure a
replica? appreciate your help.

regards
Uso



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: What does it mean?

[Schwartz, Jim]

Host not found. No such domain.

-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 10:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: What does it mean?


 - Transcript of session follows -
550 5.1.2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... Host unknown (Name server:
haifauvm.ac.il: host not found)

What can I read in this? 

Kim

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Exchange server level encryption

[Schwartz, Jim]

They are not the only company that does this, but I am most familiar with
their product.

-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption


Sounds like Tumbleweed is going to get a lot more customers now.

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption


It would depend on who you are e-mailing to. If you have a limited amount of
customers or clients PGP or S/MIME is not a bad implementation. If you have
many customers that would not be able to set up PGP for whatever reason you
should look at something that will take the message and send it to a web
site. The customer would get a message that there is an e-mail waiting for
them on your web site and they would go get it. The data would then be
transmitted over SSL which a standard web browser can handle. Tumbleweed has
a secure redirect product that would handle this for you. It also has the
added benefit of being able to handle other forms of encryption and message
retention.

-Original Message-
From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption



Tumbleweed product does this...it is something that our headquarters wants
us to look into...I haven't personally evaluated yet. dave


Dave Stevens
-IT Network Support- 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange server level encryption


Ok, my eyes are going crossed. 
I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email
from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to
have any ideas?

I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched
for "exchange 2000 encryption", "email encryption", etc. Help?

TIA

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]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Exchange server level encryption

[Schwartz, Jim]

It would depend on who you are e-mailing to. If you have a limited amount of
customers or clients PGP or S/MIME is not a bad implementation. If you have
many customers that would not be able to set up PGP for whatever reason you
should look at something that will take the message and send it to a web
site. The customer would get a message that there is an e-mail waiting for
them on your web site and they would go get it. The data would then be
transmitted over SSL which a standard web browser can handle. Tumbleweed has
a secure redirect product that would handle this for you. It also has the
added benefit of being able to handle other forms of encryption and message
retention.

-Original Message-
From: Stevens, Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange server level encryption



Tumbleweed product does this...it is something that our headquarters wants
us to look into...I haven't personally evaluated yet. dave


Dave Stevens
-IT Network Support- 
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 


-Original Message-
From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Exchange server level encryption


Ok, my eyes are going crossed. 
I have been trying to figure out a decent way to encrypt all outbound email
from our company. This is for compliance with HIPAA. Does anyone happen to
have any ideas?

I have googled and haven't found a product that looks right. I have searched
for "exchange 2000 encryption", "email encryption", etc. Help?

TIA

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]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: E2K OWA & timeouts

[Schwartz, Jim]

We've front ended ours with an ISA server with RSA authentication. Timeouts
can be set to either x minutes of non-usage (or will be once they fix a
little bug) or x minutes of usage. Once it's timed out, you're done. There
is also a piece of sample code that they give you that can wipe the session
cookie out of memory so once the user hits the logoff page, they're done.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


This has always been an issue with OWA and why some companies flat out
refuse to use it.

-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


Thanks for trying but at the end of that Q article:

NOTE: The above setting has to do with the connection between the client and
the server and it does not affect authentication in any way. When you set
the user context time-out to a number, even if this time-out passes, the
client browser will still have the user's credentials cached and the user
will not be prompted for credentials.. 

-Original Message-
From: Edwards, Aaron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:03 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


You might give Q294752 a try. I have to say though, it didn't work for me. I
personally like Ed's solution the best.

Aaron

-Original Message-
From: McBee, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: E2K OWA & timeouts


Ken:
Are you looking at MessageWare (http://www.messageware.com)?  I have
not worked with them personally, but I know a couple of folks that have had
good things to say about them.  

Of course, you could always wait for Exchange 2003.  :-)  

Jim


-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Posted At: Friday, February 14, 2003 6:36 AM
Posted To: Exchange Technical Mailing List
Conversation: E2K OWA & timeouts
Subject: E2K OWA & timeouts


We are looking for a solution to E2K OWA's lack of a timeout feature. We are
currently looking at several options, but I thought I'd ask the list what
they are doing?

Suggestions?

Experiences (good or bad)?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Shortcuts to Outlook objects

[Schwartz, Jim]

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects


And everyone could do everything that they do now in terms of helping people
WITHOUT the MVP "status". So what is the fascination with it? It is ego or
something, it mystifies me. I keep hearing "MVP's are so helpful", yadda
yadda. But there is nothing stopping you from doing exactly the same things
that you are doing WITHOUT being an MVP.

Lawyers have actual ethics, written down and agreed to by everyone in the
profession and if you violate those ethics, there are consequences, just ask
Bill Clinton. There is nothing even close in IT. People may have personal
their own personal ethics, but who cares?

As long as the IT industry is tied to vendors and tools, it will continue to
be polarized and it will continue to be a trade. The MVP program is part of
this problem. It is not the entire part, but I think that it is much more
insidious than going to a trade show and picking up free stuff, because it
is the granting of a title. That, in and of itself is a big problem.

> You are so wrong that it pains me to even read your e-mail. I've 
> gotten more critical feedback from those folks that are MVP's than 
> most others. Not just generalities that Outlook doesn't have very good 
> backwards compatibility, but why the development team did that and why 
> they think they were wrong. They've said it in public forums as well. 
> Ask a lawyer if they've received anything for free and they'll answer, 
> damn right they have. I'm stunned that you would say that I have no 
> ethics or are you just throwing around generalities in a trollish way? 
> A vendor can give me a shirt, or a coffee mug doesn't mean that I 
> won't call them to the carpet on their product. Just ask ANY of my 
> vendors. If there is something wrong with their product or it doesn't 
> do something I want it to do, then I let them know to fix their BAS.
> 
> The title of MVP doesn't mean Microsoft pet. It's given to those 
> people that have demonstrated knowledge in the field and a willingness 
> to help others get the most from the product. If Chris or Ed or Missy 
> or the Andy's or Martin or Robert or Tom tells me that something works 
> or doesn't work, I know it's from their belief in what they've seen in 
> the product. Not from something that the vendor told them to say. I've 
> never seen one of them not "tell it like it is". I've seen them be 
> more critical of Microsoft than most anyone else.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:50 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
> 
> 
> So, you are going to tell me that you have never received any sort of 
> compensation at all for being an MVP. I am talking T-Shirts, plastic 
> toys, anything and even the TITLE of MVP. If you receive ANY FORM OF 
> COMPENSATION, it is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple. Ask any 
> lawyer if they are allowed to accept ANYTHING for free. The answer is 
> absolutely not.
> 
> In IT, it is a different story and the difference is because IT is a 
> trade and lawyers are professionals. As long as we in IT continue to 
> operate in this mode, we will be seen as trades-people, the 
> air-conditioning repair guy or plumber, not professionals.
> 
> The MVP program is a horrible, horrible insidious device that will 
> help keep IT at the trade level. Plus, once you accept the title, you 
> are now the property of the vendor. You will consciously or 
> unconsciously have a bias toward that vendor and keeping that title. 
> This means that you will not "tell it like it is" in public and 
> instead voice concerns in private to your vendor.
> 
> If you all want to be trades-people instead of professionals, then 
> keep on with your MVP program. I tend to believe that the entire IT 
> industry is irrevocably broken. Compare it to engineers, lawyers and 
> other professionals and it does not stack up well. And that is sad, 
> because we could be professional, but we have no ethics.
> 
> 
> > I'm very interested to know what secret compensation he is speaking
> > of. Deckler, care to elaborate?
> > 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Shortcuts to Outlook objects

[Schwartz, Jim]

You are so wrong that it pains me to even read your e-mail. I've gotten more
critical feedback from those folks that are MVP's than most others. Not just
generalities that Outlook doesn't have very good backwards compatibility,
but why the development team did that and why they think they were wrong.
They've said it in public forums as well. Ask a lawyer if they've received
anything for free and they'll answer, damn right they have. I'm stunned that
you would say that I have no ethics or are you just throwing around
generalities in a trollish way? A vendor can give me a shirt, or a coffee
mug doesn't mean that I won't call them to the carpet on their product. Just
ask ANY of my vendors. If there is something wrong with their product or it
doesn't do something I want it to do, then I let them know to fix their BAS.

The title of MVP doesn't mean Microsoft pet. It's given to those people that
have demonstrated knowledge in the field and a willingness to help others
get the most from the product. If Chris or Ed or Missy or the Andy's or
Martin or Robert or Tom tells me that something works or doesn't work, I
know it's from their belief in what they've seen in the product. Not from
something that the vendor told them to say. I've never seen one of them not
"tell it like it is". I've seen them be more critical of Microsoft than most
anyone else.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects


So, you are going to tell me that you have never received any sort of
compensation at all for being an MVP. I am talking T-Shirts, plastic toys,
anything and even the TITLE of MVP. If you receive ANY FORM OF COMPENSATION,
it is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple. Ask any lawyer if they are
allowed to accept ANYTHING for free. The answer is absolutely not.

In IT, it is a different story and the difference is because IT is a trade
and lawyers are professionals. As long as we in IT continue to operate in
this mode, we will be seen as trades-people, the air-conditioning repair guy
or plumber, not professionals.

The MVP program is a horrible, horrible insidious device that will help keep
IT at the trade level. Plus, once you accept the title, you are now the
property of the vendor. You will consciously or unconsciously have a bias
toward that vendor and keeping that title. This means that you will not
"tell it like it is" in public and instead voice concerns in private to your
vendor.

If you all want to be trades-people instead of professionals, then keep on
with your MVP program. I tend to believe that the entire IT industry is
irrevocably broken. Compare it to engineers, lawyers and other professionals
and it does not stack up well. And that is sad, because we could be
professional, but we have no ethics.


> I'm very interested to know what secret compensation he is speaking 
> of. Deckler, care to elaborate?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 7:22 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
> 
> 
> Yeah. You should see the developers run whenever Chris starts walking 
> towards them.
> 
> Andy, you forgot to tell me about that "direct compensation" you get 
> for being an MVP. Unless he's talking about that t-shirt?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:11 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
> 
> 
> lol
> Thanks for the good laugh.
> I have found that the harshest critics of Microsoft products are the 
> MVPS themselves.
> 
> Andy David
> Microsoft MVP.
> There, is that better?
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:05 AM
> Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
> 
> 
> > My point is that it serves no useful purpose to cast aspersions as 
> > to people's attitudes and motivations because everyone is biased in 
> > one way or another.
> >
> > I believe that this is really systemic with regards to the problems 
> > of the IT industry as a whole. The entire industry is vendor and 
> > tool focused and that is a huge problem in IT. It tends to polarize 
> > people such that everyone is grouped into two categories, people 
> > that hate a particular vendor or tool and people that love a 
> > particular vendor or tool. This is just plain stupid.
> >
> > The IT industry has some fundamental p

RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects

[Schwartz, Jim]

Yeah. You should see the developers run whenever Chris starts walking
towards them. 

Andy, you forgot to tell me about that "direct compensation" you get for
being an MVP. Unless he's talking about that t-shirt?

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Shortcuts to Outlook objects


lol
Thanks for the good laugh.
I have found that the harshest critics of Microsoft products are the MVPS
themselves.

Andy David
Microsoft MVP.
There, is that better?

- Original Message -
From: "Greg Deckler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects


> My point is that it serves no useful purpose to cast aspersions as to 
> people's attitudes and motivations because everyone is biased in one 
> way or another.
>
> I believe that this is really systemic with regards to the problems of 
> the IT industry as a whole. The entire industry is vendor and tool 
> focused and that is a huge problem in IT. It tends to polarize people 
> such that everyone is grouped into two categories, people that hate a 
> particular vendor or tool and people that love a particular vendor or 
> tool. This is just plain stupid.
>
> The IT industry has some fundamental problems. Microsoft, as part of 
> that industry suffers from some of the same problems as well as some 
> of their own unique deficiencies. Novell has their own unique issues, 
> so does IBM and so does every other vendor in this space. But it seems 
> that you cannot point out these deficiencies without people 
> categorizing and stereotyping you in one way or another. I reject 
> that.
>
> I hate all vendors of software tools equally. I find this an absolute 
> requirement to provide true, unbiased consulting services. If you were 
> to follow my posts on a GroupWise board or a Notes board, you would 
> see me make similar arguments regarding the deficiencies of their 
> products and company. However, since I make most of my revenue from 
> Microsoft products and Exchange, I tend to be more active in that 
> area.
>
> And the other thing that REALLY chaps me is people that cast 
> aspersions on others without fessing up to their own biases. MVP's are 
> the worst of this lot. They secretly get direct compensation from 
> Microsoft and then try to pass themselves off as unbiased. But you 
> look at their posts and it is obvious that they are simply paid 
> advocates for Microsoft and part of their responsibility is to vilify 
> anyone that says anything negative with regards to Microsoft. And 
> these are the same people that list every last certification and other 
> acronym that they can paste onto the end of their sig, but you never 
> see Microsoft MVP. I wonder why? Microsoft asked me to become an MVP 
> and I told them to go jump in a lake. More people need to take this 
> approach and be true consultants, not advocates.
>
> > Are you saying that your own interpretation of your own attitude is 
> > unbiased? Or that your own evaluation of whether or not your 
> > paranioa about how Microsoft are out to get you is unbiased?
> >
> > Rob
> > Also an MVP by the way.
> > Want to throw some mud at me too?
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20
> > > Sent: 07 February 2003 11:43
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects
> > >=20
> > >=20
> > > And Ed, if I am not mistaken, you are also a Microsoft MVP,=20  so 
> > >whose interpretation is unbiased, mine or yours? =20
> > > > I continue to believe my interpretation of your attitude is 
> > > >more=20  accurate than your defense thereof. =20
> > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> > > > Tech Consultant
> > > > hp Services
> > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
> > > >=20
> > > >=20
>
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: The SEC is killing me.

[Schwartz, Jim]

So am I.
Doesn't mean he's not wrong, just that he's got a title.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:20 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


EXACTLY!

Unfortunately he is also a Assistant VP

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.

That's because your security guy doesn't have to support the desktops or pay
for training users in a new OS. Tell him to cut down on the Kool-Aide. If he
thinks linux is secure then you need to find another security guy.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


Our security guy does.  He wants to put linux on every desktop.

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.

 
Everyone?
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions

Did it have any security?

And everyone says Microsoft has too many holes

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


Me too.  It was an amazing tool.  I did a lot of programming in both
Smartware and Smartware II as well.  I remember one time I had a requirement
to make the database in 3.3 do something that in theory it could not. So I
used the macro language to write the code from scratch and generate screens
that looked like Smart itself including the menus and commands , thus giving
the illusion that Smart had suddenly gotten some new functionality.  It was
really quick and easy to do, since any command could be linked back to
itself, and module linking effectively made the nesting levels unlimited. It
was an amazingly powerful environment.  Office didn't really begin to come
close to it until Office 95, but even the XP version still can't do some of
the things that Smartware II could do, which is probably a good thing.  A
Smartware II program could rewrite the contents of the ROM BIOS, or write
directly to things like the disk controller's controls, flip bits on the NIC
and so on.  In a Netware environment it could do all of this across multiple
machines and even retrieve the values of any address using a pair of linked
macros.  You could write a help center program, complete with take over or
merely screen replication tools.  It was bad.

-Original Message-
From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


Craig,

You remembered Smartware and Smartware II (or was that Smartware plus a
bit), like that product as it was one of the first. Earned me £££'s doing
macros work. Loved it for that.

Cheers

Paul

Standards are like toothbrushes,
everyone wants one but not yours



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: The SEC is killing me.

[Schwartz, Jim]

That's because your security guy doesn't have to support the desktops or pay
for training users in a new OS. Tell him to cut down on the Kool-Aide. If he
thinks linux is secure then you need to find another security guy.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


Our security guy does.  He wants to put linux on every desktop.

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.

 
Everyone?
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions

Did it have any security?

And everyone says Microsoft has too many holes

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


Me too.  It was an amazing tool.  I did a lot of programming in both
Smartware and Smartware II as well.  I remember one time I had a requirement
to make the database in 3.3 do something that in theory it could not. So I
used the macro language to write the code from scratch and generate screens
that looked like Smart itself including the menus and commands , thus giving
the illusion that Smart had suddenly gotten some new functionality.  It was
really quick and easy to do, since any command could be linked back to
itself, and module linking effectively made the nesting levels unlimited. It
was an amazingly powerful environment.  Office didn't really begin to come
close to it until Office 95, but even the XP version still can't do some of
the things that Smartware II could do, which is probably a good thing.  A
Smartware II program could rewrite the contents of the ROM BIOS, or write
directly to things like the disk controller's controls, flip bits on the NIC
and so on.  In a Netware environment it could do all of this across multiple
machines and even retrieve the values of any address using a pair of linked
macros.  You could write a help center program, complete with take over or
merely screen replication tools.  It was bad.

-Original Message-
From: Hurst, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:49 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


Craig,

You remembered Smartware and Smartware II (or was that Smartware plus a
bit), like that product as it was one of the first. Earned me £££'s doing
macros work. Loved it for that.

Cheers

Paul

Standards are like toothbrushes,
everyone wants one but not yours



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: The SEC is killing me.

[Schwartz, Jim]

That would depend on who the contact is with. If you are talking about SEC
Rule 240.17a-4 then you may need to retain conversations. The real
difference to me is that e-mail is legally considered a document and that IM
is no different from a telephone conversation. Should we wire tap all the
phones and record them for violations?

Doing a google search under SEC Rule 240.17a-4 will pop up a lot of
information on the subject.

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: The SEC is killing me.


I asked the lawyers here that same question and havent gotten a response yet
if it is required. If it isnt now, I imagine it will be very soon.

- Original Message -
From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.


> What are you doing about instant messaging?  Don't you have to keep 
> all IM transactions as well?
>
> Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> Technical Consultant
> hp Services
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral 
> problems."
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 6:34 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: The SEC is killing me.
>
>
> This will not help you with your SEC problem.  It's just a musing and 
> is merely to suggest that no audit technique is fool proof.  I think 
> that any system that you can design, a clever person can get around.
>
> Let me suggest a scenario from back in the days when I was working on 
> virus delivery techniques and counter measures.  The key to this 
> particular "almost impossible to detect" nefarious message delivery 
> technique would be to send a message to an external mailbox that had a 
> client running against it with in-box rules enabled.  The client could 
> parse the message and execute a script or even an external program 
> that would generate another message, which could be sent to any smtp 
> address (or in the case of a virus, do nefarious things on  its own 
> local network).  So let's say I send a one word message to my home 
> mailbox that says "hi."  That could trigger a script that sends a 
> message to tell someone to sell.  Another script triggered by "dinner 
> tonight" could trigger a script that generates the buy message. You 
> get the idea. The offending message itself can be as simple or complex 
> but apparently harmless cipher that you could imagine.  It could even 
> be embedded in a pattern that looks like I'm sending a daily (or 
> better yet, apparently random and occasional) note commenting on 
> tonight's menu, with an "if message text contains" filter at the other 
> end.  A hindered word note that contained the phrase "rare steak" 
> could be the trigger.  The "to" address is not that of the ultimate 
> recipient, and the instruction in a form that you could detect is 
> beyond the reach of your archives and searches. There reality is, that 
> you simply cannot filter for this sort of thing in your archives.  You 
> can find someone that is being stupid or careless, but not someone 
> that is cunning and deliberate.
>
> The extent to which variations on this technique can be used is 
> frightening. Consider what a batch file on a DOS machine could do, in 
> terms of generating an Assembly language program by having VB Script 
> simply write stings from an Excel or Word document to a text file.  
> The VB Script does not even have to travel with the Office document, 
> but can simply be running on the machine on the receiving end.  Such a 
> trigger can be hidden behind layer upon layer of isolating techniques.  
> The initial trigger instruction does not have to be sent via SMTP.  A 
> FAX to something like a SatisFAXtion modem or a call to an IVR system 
> listening for a specific DMTF sequence that would not be recorded by 
> your phone system can do it.  A web site can do it.  Web mail to your 
> home smtp address can do it.  A cellular call . . .  You get the idea. 
> Every link will leave some tracks, but those tracks can be incomplete 
> and look very harmless.
>
> Back in the 80's before Microsoft Office became the dominant office 
> suite, there was a product called "Smartware" by a small company in 
> Lenexa, Kansas that was later purchased by Informix and destroyed. 
> Smartware had the equivalent of VBA in all of its modules, and it had 
> a communications module. The second version of the package even had 
> PEEK and POKE instructions. Imagine what you could do with that today 
> in and administrative security context on a Win2K machine in an 
> Internet world.
>
>
> Nedry (a transposition of "nerdy") is still out there.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 4:45 PM
> To: Exchange Di

RE: RBL Article

[Schwartz, Jim]

I want a syrup warmer.

-Original Message-
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 3:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: RBL Article


 
Next you'll want built-in antivirus and firewall and content filter and
catch-all mailbox and refridgerator inventory connector.

William 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 11:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, at 1:47pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I have read that Titanium will have some sort of RBL feature.
>
> But will it have customizable NDRs and Storage Limit Warnings? lol

  How about a feature to automatically append text to every message?

-- 
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: More OT: Hitachi SAN

[Schwartz, Jim]

Thirded. The other benefit is the lower costs. A BCV volume for EMC is
essentially a mirror of your existing set of spindles (which are probably
mirrored). The DB is shut down and the mirror is broken and mounted
elsewhere for backup to tape. In order to remount that mirror for the next
day, you'll need to shut down the DB again. You can create a fourth mirror
to mount as you are breaking the first one. That's 4 sets of spindles to
handle the disk needs. That can get really expensive and you'll still need
to verify the integrity of the DB before you back it up to tape.

Backing it up to disk can take fewer disks as you are generally more
concerned with volume size rather than spindle I/O's.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:56 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN


Doing that also interrupts any users who are logged on.

I agree about backing up to disk and snapping the backup file.

Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Technical Consultant
hp Services
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Roger Seielstad
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 5:03 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN


 script that shuts down the db does the snapshot and then 
> restarts the db
> all done in less than a minute. Yo

I don't know about you, but shutting down my Exchange databases takes
significantly longer than a minute. Granted, they're still predominantly
Ex5.5, but its not a one minute process. Might be if I did it daily, but I
can't, since we run 24x7.

Personally, I still think the best way to do it is to use a backup to disk
option and rip that to tape, or use an agent based backup. 

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Haigh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:21 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> 
> It's only if you are taking snapshots of running db's that you have 
> the problems. OK I know there are a number of sites out there who will 
> not allow even a minute of the air but the majority of us can live 
> with a script that shuts down the db does the snapshot and then
> restarts the db
> all done in less than a minute. You can then kick off your 
> backup which
> backs the snapshot up to tape. I have seen this form of 
> snapshotting on
> EMC and NetApps and it works very well. I have also seen Oracle
> databases recovered from snapshots successfully.
> 
> Listening to MS they have added support for snapshots in Windows.NET 
> and they are also saying that there will be snapshotting available on 
> the next version of Exchange, but lets wait and see. The snapshots in 
> .NET is more of a complete copy followed by delta's for each 
> subsequent snapshot.
> 
> EMC and NetApps use technology that provides instant snapshots as all 
> it does it take a snapshot of the block allocation table and only if a
> block is about to change does it create a second block to 
> keep a copy of
> the block as at the time of the snapshot. This obviously 
> saves on space
> but if you have a mutliple disk failure does mean you could 
> lose all of
> the data for that snapshot, though in one of these modern SAN's with
> multiple spare drives is very unlikely.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 December 2002 1:39 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> 
> If you cant restore it, whats the point?
> 
> Is it safe to assume the same with a SQL or Oracle db as well?  What
> about a AD global directory?
> 
> I'm getting the impression that its good for file systems and file
> servers and not much more.
> 
> e-
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:03 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> You might be able to restore one if you're lucky.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> Technical Consultant
> hp Services
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to
> behavioral problems."
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> Of Roger Seielstad
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 5:21 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> 
> You can take snapshot backups of the database. You
> can't restore them, but you can take them.
> 
> Roger
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> Atlanta, GA
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Frid

RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN

[Schwartz, Jim]

But they are so shiny...

Quack.

EMC has been working with Oracle closely to do "instant" backups. I haven't
looked too much at the Hitachi SANs and don't know what they are capable of.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:56 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN


That's the impression I got 18 to 24 months ago.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> 
> If you cant restore it, whats the point?
> 
> Is it safe to assume the same with a SQL or Oracle db as
> well?  What about a
> AD global directory?
> 
> I'm getting the impression that its good for file systems and
> file servers
> and not much more.
> 
> e-
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 11:03 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> You might be able to restore one if you're lucky.
> 
> Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
> Technical Consultant
> hp Services
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to
> behavioral problems."
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> Of Roger Seielstad
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 5:21 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> 
> 
> You can take snapshot backups of the database. You
> can't restore them, but you can take them.
> 
> Roger
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> Atlanta, GA
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 5:31 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> > 
> > 
> > I've seen Exchange 2000 run on servers that use a
> Hitachi SAN.  There
> > really shouldn't be any problem running Exchange on
> any high-quality
> > SAN system.  Don't believe the hyperbole, however,
> that you can take
> > snapshot backups of the Exchange databases.
> > 
> > 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 Hansen, Eric
> > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 6:39 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: More OT: Hitachi SAN
> > 
> > 
> > 2nd verse, same as the first...  :p
> > 
> > 
> > Anyone running a Hitachi 9900 V Series SAN?  Or
> maybe just the 9900
> > series?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Normally I wouldn't ask such things of an exchange
> group, but the
> > diversity and technical expertise here is very good.
> > 
> > e-
> > 
> >
> _
> > List posting FAQ:  
> http://www.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]
> 
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. 
> http://mailplus.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]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/site

RE: the IBM Shark

[Schwartz, Jim]

You keep thinking your happy thoughts. 

Who is going to be running your SAN? If you find yourself arguing the
difference between spindles and storage space, you're going to have a grand
old time.

The architecture for the large SAN vendors was based on the limitations in
the IBM 3xxx mainframe systems. It was more cost effective to place large
amounts of cache in the storage system to accommodate its predictable, read
IO operations. You'll find that the typical answer to any issue you have
with a large SAN is to throw more hardware at it.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:18 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark


:p that could be solved with proper planning and good lun management.  

-Original Message-----
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark

You're going to carve up the disks and share spindles with "critcal" servers
running high intensive databases? 

Good luck.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark


We plan on using it for our 17 "critical" servers and to cut the prices of
all the disk we have.  Mostly Windows/SQL, and some AIX and linux.  Out the
door we were going to start with 3tb so the rumor of a 3.36tb performance
boundary made me a little wary, but I'm not sure if there is any truth to
it.

e-

-Original Message-
From: John Allhiser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 8:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark

As DASDI for os390/Zos mainframes they're great.
Not aware of the exact performance boundary.
What do you plan to use them for.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OT: the IBM Shark


Is anyone here happen to be running a IBM shark or possibly a Hitachi 9900
series SAN?  We are looking at both of these and I have heard rumors that
the shark has a performance boundary of 3.36 TB.  Just curious.

e-

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: the IBM Shark

[Schwartz, Jim]

You're going to carve up the disks and share spindles with "critcal" servers
running high intensive databases?


Good luck.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 10:52 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark


We plan on using it for our 17 "critical" servers and to cut the prices of
all the disk we have.  Mostly Windows/SQL, and some AIX and linux.  Out the
door we were going to start with 3tb so the rumor of a 3.36tb performance
boundary made me a little wary, but I'm not sure if there is any truth to
it.

e-

-Original Message-
From: John Allhiser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 8:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: the IBM Shark

As DASDI for os390/Zos mainframes they're great.
Not aware of the exact performance boundary.
What do you plan to use them for.

-Original Message-
From: Hansen, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OT: the IBM Shark


Is anyone here happen to be running a IBM shark or possibly a Hitachi 9900
series SAN?  We are looking at both of these and I have heard rumors that
the shark has a performance boundary of 3.36 TB.  Just curious.

e-

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 loves memory

[Schwartz, Jim]

And you forget to bring beer.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory


Seems like I'm always late to the party.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:46 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory
> 
> 
>  
> FWIW, I answered it within an hour if it being asked.  The following 
> morning, Roger restated the same answer.
> 
> William
> 
>  
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Andrea Coppini
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:37 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> Since no one bothered to actually answer the question,  I'll give it a 
> try.
> 
> Andrey, if you're using Exchange 2000, the memory munching is
> by design.
> STORE.EXE takes up as much available physical RAM as possible to cache
> mailboxes and speed up access.
> 
> We have 1.2Gb in our Exch, and Store.exe's usage hovers around 800mb.
> 
> This is completely normal.
> 
> Also, it will (should) automatically reduce its memory
> utilization when
> other applications start needing it (eg. Backup jobs, opening of
> software or large admin tools on the exchange server), so it 
> won't force
> the system to use virtual memory.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 15 November 2002 2:23 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > It does matter in that he was responding to the level of
> > service pack Martin suggested.  
> > If you must, at least jump all over him when he's actually wrong.  
> > 
> > Not really addressed to you, Roger.
> > 
> > William
> >  
> >  
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > Roger Seielstad
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 4:42 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > 
> > And the simple fact, Precht, is that it doesn't matter.
> > 
> > It's a client side, not a server side, fix. And the
> > functionality has existed at least since Outlook 2000 SR1.
> > 
> > --
> > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> > Sr. Systems Administrator
> > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> > Atlanta, GA
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 7:20 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Did he mention 5.5 in there? I don't think he did.
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin
> > > Blackstone
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 17:25
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Why SP3 anyhow? SP4 is where you need to be.
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:35 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: STORE.EXE loves memory
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think it will stop after 3GB.
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Johnny [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:38 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: STORE.EXE loves memory
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi everyone.
> > > 
> > > I have just rolled out exchange and I'm finding the store.exe 
> > > process is slowly eating all memory.  I have exchange SP3 on this
> machine and I
> > > tried the registry fix Microsoft suggests that deals with
> > an excessive
> > > amount of threads and its still not under control.  Is
> > there anything
> > > else I can do. I'm putting in more memory into the server
> > but I assume
> > > it will only eat that too!
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Disable external email privileges

[Schwartz, Jim]

The students are employed by the school so it's a business e-mail address
not the student one. They have every right to do what they want.

Yes, you can use the encapsulated x.400 address but in this case I don't
think anyone would make the effort to do that.

-Original Message-
From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:hummertc@;noghri.net] 
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Disable external email privileges


Yea but the question is would they? If their students then it's safe to
assume (well in the US anyways) that their university provides them with
e-mail addresses. Now I'm also assuming that he's disabling their external
e-mail address cause he doesn't want them mailing their friends ect ect. But
wouldn't they be using their universities e-mail system to do this anyways?
With webmail systems and all isn't what he's doing more trouble then it's
worth? Unless of course he's doing it so the students can't contact clients.
But if that was the case is he going to take away their phone privileges
too? What type of employee relationship is this going to produce? Is it more
harmful to the company to do this and give the students a bad impression of
the place then it is to allow access?

-Chris

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:bounce-exchange-97309@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Disable external email privileges


By emailing their encapsulated x.400 address which, if one is looking for a
way to circumvent the system, is obtainable.

> -Original Message-
> From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:mhutchins@;amr-corp.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:14 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> 
> Yes, but if they cant send and don't have an SMTP addy, then how is
> anyone going to address them from the outside?
> 
> =:^]
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:09 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Disable external email privileges
> 
> 
> That covers preventing them from sending. ;)
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:mhutchins@;amr-corp.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:06 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> >
> > Ok, ok, ok
> >
> >
> >
> > Details, details..
> >
> > Put a restriction on the IMC that only a dist list can use it and
> > add all the people you want to be able to send to the internet to 
> > it..
> >
> > Better, Chris? :-)
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:chris_scharff@;messageone.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 9:01 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Disable external email privileges
> >
> >
> > That doesn't exactly work. Exchange will create an SMTP address
> > (encapsulated x.400) for them on the fly for outbound messages and 
> > that can be used to reply.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Hutchins, Mike [mailto:mhutchins@;amr-corp.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:23 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > >
> > > Don't give them an smtp address..
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Raji Arulambalam [mailto:rajia@;envbop.govt.nz]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:17 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Disable external email privileges
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > Using Exchange 5.5 how can I disable a user from receiving and
> > > sending
> >
> > > external email, but still able to send withing the Exchange
> > > Organisation.? We have students being employed, and we want to 
> > > restrict their email. Any help would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Raji Arulambalam
> > > Systems Administrator
> > > Bay of Plenty REGIONAL Council
> > > P O Box 364 Whakatane, Whakatane
> > > NEW ZEALAND
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > **
> > > This e-mail has been checked for viruses and no viruses were
> > > detected.
> > >
> > > _
> > > 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: mai

RE: Performance Monitoring Question

[Schwartz, Jim]

Found it on Active Answers finally. You'll need to register on their site to
get it.

http://tinyurl.com/2p7g

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim 
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Performance Monitoring Question


There used to be a good white paper written by Compaq and Microsoft called
Managing and Monitoring Microsoft(r) Exchange Server. I can't find it on
either site anymore.

I'll send it to you offline if you would like.

-Original Message-
From: Marshall, Ben F. [mailto:ben.marshall@;usaa.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Performance Monitoring Question


Can someone tell me what the best counters are to determine how a server is
performing.  I know tat the ultimate test is the performance time the users
are seeing (ie.. Open messages and attachments, send messages) But what
counters will give me an accruate picture of what the users are seeing? Also
I realize that there is not one or 2 counters that will do this. But there
must be a group...

Thanks,

Ben

_
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: Performance Monitoring Question

[Schwartz, Jim]

There used to be a good white paper written by Compaq and Microsoft called
Managing and Monitoring Microsoft(r) Exchange Server. I can't find it on
either site anymore.

I'll send it to you offline if you would like.

-Original Message-
From: Marshall, Ben F. [mailto:ben.marshall@;usaa.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Performance Monitoring Question


Can someone tell me what the best counters are to determine how a server is
performing.  I know tat the ultimate test is the performance time the users
are seeing (ie.. Open messages and attachments, send messages) But what
counters will give me an accruate picture of what the users are seeing?
Also I realize that there is not one or 2 counters that will do this. But
there must be a group...

Thanks,

Ben

_
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: How did I receive this?

[Schwartz, Jim]

Blind Carbon Copy.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rrivera@;elnuevodia.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: How did I receive this?


I just received an email (and possibly others in my company) but it did not
have a 'To:' (receipient). I am attaching all of the information I could
gather from the email. How is it possible for an email without a destination
recipient to be delivered?

Thanks!
Raul

--

Received: from Webshield (10.1.9.90 [10.1.9.90]) by end_mail.elnuevodia.com
with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13)
id WM4JL53Q; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:40:17 -0400
Received: from unknown(10.1.9.10) by Webshield via csmap 
 id 18092; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:36:09 -0400 (AST)
Received: from node-c-3eb5.a2000.nl ([62.194.62.181]) by
endfirewall.elnuevodia.com
  via smtpd (for [10.1.9.90]) with SMTP; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:49:30
-0400
From: "MRS M. SESE SEKO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:38:28 -0800
Subject: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6900 DM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

_
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: Sent Item

[Schwartz, Jim]

I don't do much admin work any more. (quack) Deleted Items Retention solves
99.9% of the issues with someone deleting something unintentionally. Most of
the time the user hits delete and immediately has knows that they needed
that message. Our helpdesk (least cost) can walk them through how to restore
the item themselves. A simple published document stating that mail is
restorable for free up to x (whatever DIR is set to) and will cost x after
that. Any item older than whatever your tape rotation is set to is not
available for restore. The chargeback to the users is to cover the costs of
the administrators time. Nobody really seems to mind this, as long as it
spelled out in advance.

-Original Message-
From: Allison M. Wittstock [mailto:aw@;inubit.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Sent Item


Are you guys the in-house mail admins?  I would think that its part of the
job 
description, to backup the data and be able to retrieve something.  
Or at least, that is what my users would say if I tried to charge them 50
Euro 
to retrive some data.  I can understand if you are hosting company and the 
customers are paying for mailboxes and support, but if not, I'm really 
curious how you get away with that. 

Allison W.

On Wednesday 13 November 2002 15:18, you wrote:
> The customer shouldn't be punished for something that should take 2 hours,
> but instead takes 4. A flat fee works best with a SLA that states 24 hours
> to restore it. Longer if you have to get tapes from offsite. $50.00 or
> $100.00 it doesn't matter really what you charge. No one wants to go to
> their boss and get the sign off on the charge to restore a picture of
their
> sisters baby or that funny joke a friend sent. If it's important, really
> important, you could charge $1000.00 and they'd still pay.
>
> It just gets rid of the riff-raff.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Winzenz [mailto:james.winzenz@;inovis.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:12 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> Woohooo!  But why only $50?  Seems like it should be $50/hr or something
> like that . . . With a minimum charge, of course!
>
> James Winzenz, MCSE, A+
> Associate Systems Administrator
> InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:JSchwartz@;BBandT.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:02 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> Amen! You'd be surprised how many times that "important" document isn't
> worth the $50.00 charge to their cost center.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:17 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> 3. Ask the user for his cost center number to which to charge the costs of
> the restore.  That'll usually scare 'em off!
>
> 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:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of James Winzenz
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> 1.  restore from backup
> 2.  have the user request that the person he/she sent the email to send it
> back to him/her.
>
> James Winzenz, MCSE, A+
> Associate Systems Administrator
> InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:TNguyen@;jetproducts.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:44 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> I did not implement the Ed Crowley Never Restore Method and the retention
> was not set. What other options do I have to restore the send item? Thank
> Everyone
>
> Tony
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams@;gettyimages.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 8:02 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> Ed - I'm surprised at you.  The item went through the Deleted Items
folder.
> No need for dumpsteralwayson.  The question is: did he implement the Ed
> Crowley Never Restore Method?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:30 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Sent Item
>
>
> Search TechNet for "DumpsterAlwaysOn".
>
> Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
> Tech Consultant
> hp Services
> Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
>

RE: Sent Item

[Schwartz, Jim]

Amen! You'd be surprised how many times that "important" document isn't
worth the $50.00 charge to their cost center.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sent Item


3. Ask the user for his cost center number to which to charge the costs
of the restore.  That'll usually scare 'em off!

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:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of James Winzenz
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sent Item


1.  restore from backup
2.  have the user request that the person he/she sent the email to send
it back to him/her.

James Winzenz, MCSE, A+
Associate Systems Administrator
InovisTM, formerly Harbinger and Extricity


-Original Message-
From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:TNguyen@;jetproducts.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sent Item


I did not implement the Ed Crowley Never Restore Method and the
retention was not set. What other options do I have to restore the send
item? Thank Everyone

Tony

-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams@;gettyimages.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 8:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sent Item


Ed - I'm surprised at you.  The item went through the Deleted Items
folder. No need for dumpsteralwayson.  The question is: did he implement
the Ed Crowley Never Restore Method?

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:30 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Sent Item


Search TechNet for "DumpsterAlwaysOn".

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:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Tony Nguyen
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 12:34 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Sent Item


I have a user that deleted the sent item and then empty the deleted
items. Is there a way to get this item back from the database?

Tony Nguyen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
System Administrator/DBA
Senior Aerospace Jet Products
(858) 278-8400 EXT. 250
www.jetproducts.com


_
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]


===
This email and its contents are confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient, please do not disclose
or use the information within this email or its
attachments. If you have received this email in error,
please delete it immediately. Thank you.
===

_
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]

_
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: somewhat OT

[Schwartz, Jim]

To be kept in the life style that you wish to become accustomed to. 

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:32 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: somewhat OT


Who knows?  I'd love to retire today.  If I can only convince my wife to
work full-time!

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:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H
(Jim)
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: somewhat OT


You're gonna be around that long Ed?  I figured you'd be retiring in
about 5 years!

;0)  (g, d&r)

Jim Blunt
E-mail Admin
Network Infrastructure Group 
Bechtel Hanford, Inc.
Office: 372-9188 



-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net] 
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:59 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: somewhat OT


This presumes that the function of "e-mail" remains stagnant.  If it
doesn't, the "pure hardware" box has to chase a moving target, which is
not an easy thing to do.

Doesn't just about every company that has a "hardware" firewall also
have a firewall administrator?

Not that any of your forecasts scare me.  I'm retiring within 20 years.

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:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: somewhat OT


So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering
messages?

First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning
in what I am about to say, and am only speculating.  I fully expect to
see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten
years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys
admin is not required.  My guess is that initially it would be targeted
at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100
seats) at first. It has to go that way.  If you look at what is
happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and
D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic
functionality.  Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone
chasing after this space as well.  It only makes sense that this space
will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless
servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.).
General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening.

As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines.  20
years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large
systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of
network pieces.


-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: somewhat OT


Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target.
They missed the boat from day one.

There is a relative break even point for having your own "IT" staff,
generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company
actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once
you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades
type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done.

Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that
expensive - you could probably do that for <$10k. Win2k with E2k has
raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing
options, that server could be a few hundred a month.

Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree,
not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus
orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time
to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but
I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the
cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs.

Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business
need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1].
More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make
more sense in a managed environment. Email never did.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA

[1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well
aren't the issue here.


> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: somewhat OT
> 
> 
> Y

RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'

[Schwartz, Jim]

Many organizations see messaging as a transport system or a communication
system and fail to see the significant body of knowledge that is captured in
the e-mails. The problem arises with this data not being organized into
easily searchable information. Archival solutions are really a patch on top
of this, allowing the organization to index and search for the information
that they need.

I think you're correct in thinking that most companies don't see the cost of
implementing an archival solution being lower than the benefit of being able
to mine the information out of the messages. Where you will see some
movement is the in the regulatory and other legal compliance issues. Being
able to discover all messages relating to an incident, a business decision,
customer trades, etc. etc. and getting this information to lawyers or
regulators is fast becoming an important piece of business. Companies that
must implement these types of solutions would be smart to leverage their
investment in archival solutions to also provide knowledge management.

-Original Message-
From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'


I have ony found one solution to this type of problem and it is called an
Email Archival system. I have no idea why this type of a solution is not
more popular. It gets the information out of the Exchange stores and off
user's hard drives and onto permanent storage on CD's or DVD's. The systems
they have now integrate quite well with Exchange, provide advanced security
capabilities and include full-text searching capabilities. And users can
access the systems via a web browser.

Why more people do not use these systems is anyone's guess. Apparently most
email admins out there are content with draconian storage policies or
catering to users like poor Russell who is personally buring CD's. It can
all be automated and you can have the best of all worlds. Email Archival
systems folks, they have been around for a long time and work quite well.

I recommend them to nearly every client that I work for because there is so
much business knowledge in email that it is almost criminal the way some
companies blast it from their systems after only a week or two. If they
actually understood and appreciated the amount of knowledge and business
process information that they were losing, they would never do such an
incredibly stupid thing.

And Craig, I have to disagree with you about user provided storage.
Individuals have consistently proven that they simply cannot store, organize
and process large amounts of data. If I received as much snail mail as
email, my entire house would be full of unorganized stacks of crap. Proper
storage of business information should reside on business systems, not on
personally provided storage. Centralization and automation of storage is
incredibly more efficient and productive than individual users storing their
own information.

> Tongue out of cheek - this is a product design problem of course.
> 
> Give me one good reason for Exchange being in the storage or data 
> management business.  How it ought to work in a world with Active 
> Directories and Distributed File System overlays to NTFS is that a 
> mailbox should be a pointer to user provided storage.  Who provides 
> your snail mail box?  It's not the post office, unless you are renting 
> a PO Box.  Normal delivery is to storage that you provide, structure 
> and manage.
> 
> Why does Exchange deliver primarily to message stores?  Because of a 
> lack of sufficient protocols and customer demand to do it right.
> 
> If your customer thinks your service is inadequate, your customer is 
> not wrong.  As someone earlier in this thread said so eloquently (if
> misguidedly)
> 
> duh!
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Etts, Russell [mailto:retts@;harman.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:35 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
> 
> 
> Hi there
> 
> I have the same issue here.  People have PST files that are well over 
> a gig, and we had one person go over the 2 gig limit.  No matter what 
> we tell them, they insist that they need a mailbox over a gig.  I 
> limit them to a max of 300 megs, no matter how much crying they do.  I 
> just don't know what to do.
> 
> I have told people once their PSTs hit 600 megs, then I'll transfer it 
> to my machine and burn them a CD rom.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Russell
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David N. Precht [mailto:discussions@;entrysecurity.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:56 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Using a PST for 'overflow'
> 
> No, just inform them of the 'No PST Backup' policy.
> 
> I don't back up PSTs. Period.  Either its in their mailbox or it is 
> not that important.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of 

RE: RBL's

[Schwartz, Jim]

Hello! [1]

Frankly. I run the mail system for a business. Decisions about who and what
arrives into my mail systems is BUSINESS decision. The folks who run the RBL
systems are technologists. They make TECHNOLOGY decisions. They have no idea
about my business needs so I would never allow them to make technological
decisions regarding who can send me mail. I've found that the administrators
that like the RBL's tend to be very technical without a lick of business
sense. Their theory is that it is better to reject a few good mail messages
than to receive any spam. This is in complete opposite of the intent of the
SMTP RFC's. Be generous in what you receive and conservative in what you
send.

RBL's are fine if you want to block mail at your home or if you have a
personal web page. If you're a business, you'd better have a better plan in
place than RBL.

[1] By the way Daniel. He never did listen to reason, he finally came out
and said that he didn't care what the RFC said.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:danielc@;dc-resources.net] 
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: RBL's


I'll jump in here.

Thus far RBL's have been run by individuals. Seems some had axes to grind,
others refused to consider that their understanding of the RFCs was wrong
and others were just plain incompetent or lazy. An acquaintance of mine had
a dispute with one such list and wound up having to write the author of the
current RFC on SMTP mail (since Mr. Postel is long since deceased) to get
the guy to listen to reason.

In theory, they are a good idea. In practice they can, and have, caused more
problems then they are worth.

So, here's a real-world example for you:

DomainA has inadvertently left it's SMTP mail server wide open for relay. A
hacker finds and exploits them. A RBL list is alerted and DomainA is
blacklisted.
DomainB frequently does business, as a buyer, with DomainA. DomainB
subscribes to the aforementioned RBL.
DomainB sends a message to his sales rep at DomainA who duly and promply
replies. The reply never gets there because of the RBL. The sales rep
forwards the NDR to his admin.
Said admin contacts the RBL admin. He learns what happens and closes the
relay.

What Should Happen:
Said admin contacts RBL admin. RBL admin tests and sees problem is fixed.
DomainA removed from RBL
What HAS Happened too often in the past:
Said admin contacts RBL admin. Gets ignored. Or RBL admin's test is flawed.
Or maybe he just doesn't care. Or maybe he wants money (extortion).

Net result of the second scenario: purchase order goes to another company
and DomainA is screwed.


- Original Message -
From: "David Gibbons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: RBL's


> Mr. Scharff,
>
> I understand that you're currently a bit jaded with this topic (or you
> could be enjoying yourself not sure...  The email intonation module on my
> pc is broken *grin*).  But, would you mind taking a moment to explain or
> send links to previous explanations as to why RBL is not a good idea?
> With the research that I have conducted I cannot find any serious issues
> with it. Of course I'm missing quite a lot of first hand knowledge with
> this technology since I have yet to incorporate within my test
> environment.
>
> I fear that I might be apart of that 32% your talking about and wish to...
> um... well... *shrug* not be.
>
>
> Thanks for the input!
> David
>
> > Perhaps you should read your e-mails before you send them. Just cause
> > you wrote something down and it sounds one way in your head doesn't
> > meant that it will sound the same way on the other end.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
> > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 1:02 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: RBL's
> >
> >
> > I guess the #include humor.h module wasn't loaded for you this morning.
> > I'd suggest that the spelling remark was only rude to a subset of the
> > 32% of admins who actually could spell RBL and thus understood the barb.
> > As a journalism major, with an English minor I am quite concerned about
> > any grammatical errors I might have made in the comment you are
> > referring to. Would you please be so kind as to point out my grammar
> > errors so that I might endeavor to eliminate them from my future
> > postings?
> >
> > Now, as to your point that my statement that of the 32% of mail
> > administrators who can spell RBL many are unable to comprehend the
> > implications of it: I've made more than 8,000 replies in various public
> > forums in the last 12 months. I've read over 50,000 threads during that
> > same period. It's been a relatively slow year for me, but even if we
> > take those low water numbers back 4 years it's still a fairly
> > substantial number of administrators and posts that I've enco

RE: VPN breaks Outlook

[Schwartz, Jim]

For WinNT 4.0 in H-node - Q142309   Q119493 is a good article describing the
different node types.

NetBIOS name cache
WINS server - 3 queries 1.5 second timeout.
B-node broadcast - 3 broadcasts with 750ms timeout.
LMHOSTS file
HOSTS file
DNS server

I thought I read somewhere that Win2K reverses the WINS and DNS portion of
the lookups, but can not find this article any more.



-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:davida@;vss.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook


I think its still the same in W2k as well - an h-node WINS client will check
hosts and a DNS server last even if you have enabled "DNS for Windows Name
Resolution" to resolve *netbios* names. Specific apps like Outlook, etc. of
course use hosts and DNS first. 
Heck, I could be wrong, I havent looked it up. The only thing I am sure
about anymore is that college-aged girls are starting to call me "Sir".


-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 8:27 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook


I believe that was changed with Win2k - the behavior you describe is 100%
correct NT4 and before. I can't remember if that's been a strictly
observational thing or if I read it somewhere, but I believe I read it
somewhere.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:davida@;vss.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:37 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
> 
> 
> If however, you are using Netbios over TCP/IP and WINS for
> name resolution,
> HOSTS and DNS are the *last* things attempted.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:31 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
> 
> 
> Nope - first match wins. In the case of Win2k, however, HOSTS
> comes before
> LMHOSTS, so it seems to win.
> 
> --
> Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> Atlanta, GA
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov@;innerhost.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:18 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
> > 
> > 
> > usually HOSTS overrides them all.
> > 
> > [1] maybe because LanManager smells a little of IBM ?  :)
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:08 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
> > 
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > LMHosts is for LanManager[1] name resolution. More properly
> > called NetBIOS
> > name resolution[2], i.e. when WINS isn't available and 
> > broadcast won't cut
> > it.
> > 
> > Hosts is for host resolution, more commonly served by DNS servers.
> > 
> > --
> > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
> > Sr. Systems Administrator
> > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
> > Atlanta, GA
> > 
> > [1] I got in trouble last time I said ththat word in front of an MS 
> > employee. [2] You call it maize, we call it a pain in the arse.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:thlabse@;hotmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 10:42 AM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Re: VPN breaks Outlook
> > > 
> > > 
> > > LMHOSTS files are for your connected on a public network
> > > (internet) and
> > > HOSTS for when connected on a private.
> > > 
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "RBHATIA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:17 AM
> > > Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > Is it the LMHOSTS file or the HOSTS file ?
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:RTener@;midship.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:24 AM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: RE: VPN breaks Outlook
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yes you should use the lmhost file on the client pc to
> map to your
> > > exchange
> > > > server thats what we use here at my office and it works
> > > good.  If you need
> > > > more help dont hesitate to email me.
> > > >
> > > > rich
> > > >
> > > > -Original Message-
> > > > From: JPC [mailto:jpciocon@;hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:10 PM
> > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > Subject: VPN breaks Outlook
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi, folks:
> > > >
> > > > Mixed mode, currently migrating users from 5.5 to E2k.
> > > Remote users have
> > > > Outlook 2002 on W2k Professional laptops and Alc

RE: RBL's

[Schwartz, Jim]

Ah, yes. I recall that incident.

If you choose to use a RBL, read very carefully what the criteria is to be
placed on their lists. As Darcy said before, some of these folks block
entire netblocks. There is one or two that I know of that have blocked the
entire Sprintlink netblock. That's something like 2 million IP addresses.
All because one or two spammers somewhere in that mess. RBL's are fine if
you are running your own mail server at home. For businesses that depend on
e-mail for their communication, why would you place the decision on who can
send to your domain into the hands of some mail Nazi? I've found many of the
people that run RBL's are not interested in stopping SPAM, they are
interested in having the internet working the way they want it to. (i.e. Dr.
Cummings) We even went to the point of contacting the author of the RFC to
clarify the proper place to reject a mail message. The answer from the
RBL'ers? We don't care.

That's why I won't use them. Ever.

-Original Message-
From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad@;inovis.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:07 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: RBL's


More likely a combination of b) and a fundamental lack of understanding of
how the RBL they have chosen works with regards to managing their black hole
lists. Purusal of the archives with regards to Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Cumming
about this time last year should provide some valuable insight to the issues
with RBLs in general.

That being said, I'm fairly impressed with the Spamcop.net RBL - they
provide documentation of their blocked senders via the web, and are very
quick to retest and remove if the problem has been solved.

--
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -Original Message-
> From: William Lefkovics [mailto:william@;techsanctuary.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:16 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: RBL's
> 
> 
> That's a little harsh. (I love it when you're harsh...)
> 
> Do you mean they are not aware of it, or they are unable to comprehend
> its functionality?
> 
> William  
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of 
> Chris Scharff
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:49 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: RBL's
> 
> 
> 97.25% of mail admins are too stupid to understand what an 
> RBL actually
> is/does. I for one hope they continue to rely on 3rd parties 
> to provide
> the
> functionality, otherwise I'll likely have to join you in 
> phoning stupid
> admins to tell them why RBL $foo is costing their company business.
> 
> -- 
> Chris Scharff, MVP MCSE
> EMS Sales Engineer
> MessageOne
> 512.652.4500 x-244
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Darcy Adams [mailto:Darcy.Adams@;gettyimages.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 3:42 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: RBL's
> > 
> > 
> > Still 3rd party.  I was at a meeting at MS on Monday night 
> > and the current stance on that is that they're "thinking 
> > about possibly" including RBL support in a future release.
> > 
> > Darcy
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matt Natkin [mailto:mnatkin@;natco-inc.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:50 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RBL's
> > 
> > 
> > Hey does exchange 2k have a rbl feature or is this 3rd party?
> 
> _
> 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: Policy issue

[Schwartz, Jim]

There is a fairly good white paper on this subject here:

http://www.ferris.com/

Look for White Paper: Email Archiving & Records Management in the sponsored
research section. It also lists a number of vendors that can accommodate
your needs.

-Original Message-
From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Policy issue


I agree.  So if I read right you are suggesting this should be a completely
automated process.  So I should buy into a KVS type solution or does
messageone have something. :-).  I'd be happy to use the Mailbox Manager in
E2K if I was allowed to.  And yes I know it's my job, but I sure the heck
don't want to spend a week or more manually going through our IS with a
lawyer looking over my shoulder.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:44 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Policy issue
> 
> 
> Well, I'd join management in their resistance of an IT guy,
> no matter how talented being the one to manually delete mail 
> on a retention period, even if the policy contains proper 
> exclusions for items which need to be retained longer (some 
> of which need to be retained significanly longer than a 5 
> year tape rotation). Sorry, I don't think it's an efficient 
> use of someone that talented and it's too prone to human error.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:57 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Policy issue
> > 
> > 
> > Our lawyer is quite familiar with our business and what we do.  Not 
> > to defend lawyers or anything.  They are well versed in the 21CFR11 
> > and FDA issues we face along with the legal implications of having 
> > "no policy" as we do now. So by default our policy for me to follow 
> > becomes keep everything and make sure backups are archived for 5 
> > years.  No system is perfect but the fact is that if you have no 
> > policy it then gives a lawyer who walks in the door for "discovery" 
> > purposes the right to sit and look over my shoulder while I go 
> > through all the IS and tapes.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 12:33 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Policy issue
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It's unlikely that you or the system itself has the ability to
> > > delete mail in accordance with a well written retention 
> policy (no
> > > offense, I've been researching this subject for a book for quite
> > > some time). If your legal counsel has simply given you a 
> retention
> > > policy of something like 'everything older than 120 days
> should go'
> > > then I'd respectfully suggest you ask your legal counsel
> to revisit
> > > the policy as it's woefully inadequate.. especially for a company
> > > such as yours.
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: James Liddil
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Sent: 10/4/2002 9:00 AM
> > > Subject: Policy issue
> > > 
> > > I seem to be facing resistance from management on
> implementation of
> > > an e-mail policy.  Despite everything our legal counsel
> provided and
> > > such are not ready to go forward.
> > > They have a problem with either the system of myself deleting
> > > mail that past the retention period.  Some feel that a member 
> > > of management should be the one deleting the e-mail.  I'm 
> > > sure you can see what's wrong with that picture.  I am 
> > > looking for advice, besides sit on my hands and wait until an 
> > > event happens that forces them to implement a policy.
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: SMTP to aol.com

[Schwartz, Jim]

Please include a copy of the NDR.

-Original Message-
From: Daniel L. Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 1:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP to aol.com


What would cause my messages to AOL addresses to be rejected by AOL?  I can
send reliably to any other domain.

Daniel

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Content Filtering

[Schwartz, Jim]

-Original Message-
From: Great Cthulhu Jones [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


I think there's a muppet who does this sort of thing. I saw it on Sesame
Street.

Grover: Oh! I have gotten too much SPAM on my mail server! What will I do?
(Puff of smoke and a new muppet appears)
Grover: Who are you?
Content Filter: They call me... the Content Filter. And do you know *why*
they call me the Content Filter? It is because I *love* to filter...
content. I will go through your message store now!
Grover: Uh, well, you need to first meet with my manager and- Content
Filter: SILENCE! (waves hand and Grover stands perplexed) One... one piece
of SPAM... (hits "Delete" key) Two... two pieces of SPAM... (hits "Delete"
key)...

(:=

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Schwartz, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:46 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


You forgot the quack.

There have been numerous discussions regarding content filtering and how it
works. Decide what you are willing to risk in lost mail, or additional
manpower resources versus what you are trying to accomplish. Then go find
the tool that meets those requirements.

Looking a tools before defining your needs is bass ackwards.

-Original Message-
From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Yes you do. I expect a full report on my desk by 8am tomorrow.

-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


I was going to but haven't had a chance yet. I guess I need to take a look
at it.

-Original Message-
From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Have you installed or tested 7.0?

-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Antigen is great for virus scanning, but they have only recently gotten into
content scanning. And their content scanning is very basic so far.

-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Sybari Antigen for Exchange is an excellent package.  We use it and are very
happy with the automatic updates and the content filtering.  Also you can
create templates to distribute new changes (upgrades are free for the life
of your contract).  They are releasing their "Gold Package " at MEC, and
were voted "Best of Show for their Gold Package -- Antigen 7.0."

Geoff...



-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Excellent that works for me.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Not what, but who. I am the most reliable content filter for Exchange. For
only $375k (plus 125k annual maint) I'll come filter your mail.

-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Brian
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 10/1/2002 8:52 AM
Subject: Content Filtering

Hi all,
I just had a quick question in regards to a content filter add on and which
would be the best to use for Exchange 5.5.  Currently we are using NEMX but
I would like to explore other options.  What do you all feel is the most
reliable content filter?

Thanks,
Brian

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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/site

RE: Content Filtering

[Schwartz, Jim]

You forgot the quack.

There have been numerous discussions regarding content filtering and how it
works. Decide what you are willing to risk in lost mail, or additional
manpower resources versus what you are trying to accomplish. Then go find
the tool that meets those requirements.

Looking a tools before defining your needs is bass ackwards.

-Original Message-
From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Yes you do. I expect a full report on my desk by 8am tomorrow.

-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:33 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


I was going to but haven't had a chance yet. I guess I need to take a look
at it.

-Original Message-
From: Baker, Jennifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 1:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Have you installed or tested 7.0?

-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Antigen is great for virus scanning, but they have only recently gotten into
content scanning. And their content scanning is very basic so far.

-Original Message-
From: Dale Geoffrey Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 12:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Sybari Antigen for Exchange is an excellent package.  We use it and are very
happy with the automatic updates and the content filtering.  Also you can
create templates to distribute new changes (upgrades are free for the life
of your contract).  They are releasing their "Gold Package " at MEC, and
were voted "Best of Show for their Gold Package -- Antigen 7.0."

Geoff...



-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:41 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Excellent that works for me.  

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Content Filtering


Not what, but who. I am the most reliable content filter for Exchange. For
only $375k (plus 125k annual maint) I'll come filter your mail.

-Original Message-
From: Cooke, Brian
To: Exchange Discussions
Sent: 10/1/2002 8:52 AM
Subject: Content Filtering

Hi all,
I just had a quick question in regards to a content filter add on and which
would be the best to use for Exchange 5.5.  Currently we are using NEMX but
I would like to explore other options.  What do you all feel is the most
reliable content filter?

Thanks,
Brian

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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.s

RE: To "Great Cthulhu Jones"

[Schwartz, Jim]

You pronounce it the same way it is spelled.

Kind of sounds like spitting out a watermelon seed. [1]

[1] Begging forgiveness from Kimmie for stealing her line.

-Original Message-
From: Ray Beckwith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 1:14 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OT: To "Great Cthulhu Jones"


A humble question to the Great one. I am relatively new to the list (been
monitoring and occasionally posting for about 2 years) and I have always
wondered, what is the correct pronunciation of your name. I would hate to
insult your greatness by mispronouncing it when paying homage.


Thanks...Ray

Quote of the day:
When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh
at him.
-- Thomas Szasz


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 Bandwidth Recommendation

[Schwartz, Jim]

Yeah. If the latency is very low you should be ok, but if they're doing
other traffic as well, you might be cutting it close.

There are 50-60 users here on a Frame T1 and when the code monkeys start
their downloading of new code to the local workstation I want to scream.
Latency is bad.

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 10:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook Bandwidth Recommendation


Whats the CIR on the frame? 
384K, IMO, is cutting it a bit close for 30-40 users. 



-Original Message-
From: ed Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 12:28 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Outlook Bandwidth Recommendation


Howdy All!

Our Network Team is looking for Outlook 2000/2002 bandwidth recommendation 
for our remote sites. The users are light mail users and will be homed on 
Exchange 2000. The sites are connected over a 384K frame circuit with 30-40 
users.



_
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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]


--
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: Storage Limit warnings

[Schwartz, Jim]

http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq_sec3.htm 3.35

-Original Message-
From: Williams Scott CTR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Storage Limit warnings


Is there a way to customize the warnings that Exchange 5.5 sends out to warn
users for storage limits?

 

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]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: message tracking logs

[Schwartz, Jim]

You can set that under a configuration setting in the System Attendant.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 11:54 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: message tracking logs


You should configure the message tracking log retention period so that
you don't have to delete them manually.

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 Jojo Solis
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 6:06 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: message tracking logs


is it a safe to manually delete the mesasge tracking log file?

E2K,SP2

thanks,


jojo

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: NDR to Uconn

[Schwartz, Jim]

Some mailers get ornery about sending to a domain without and MX record.
They expect to see and MX record and they should default to the A record if
the MX record is not available, but they don't always do it well.


Go Huskies!

-Original Message-
From: Sandhya Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 1:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: NDR to Uconn


They have taken the uconnvm out to make it easier.  From here I can send to
either [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I'm surprised that it's not
working for you.

Sandhya

-Original Message-
From: Durkee, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: NDR to Uconn


Uconn.edu does have an MX record. It points to uconnvm.uconn.edu at
137.99.26.3. Try resending the message, leaving out the uconnvm part of the
address.

-Peter


-Original Message-
From: Dave Vantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 6:53
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: NDR to Uconn


Exch 5.5. Sp4 W2K Sp2

A user is trying send an email to a recipient @uconnvm.uconn.edu and it is
bouncing. Running the RESTEST.EXE utility fails and states it would have
been queued for delivery later. I checked the domain against the
http://www.zmailer.org/mxverify.html and find that there does not appear to
be any MX records for the domain. When I ran Sam Spade's SMTP tool the
recipient address is ok. I believe I recall from a post to the list some
time ago that Exchange will not deliver mail to systems that do not contain
MX records.

If this correct, is there anyway to resolve this short of getting Uconn to
put an MX record in there DNS servers.  I can already hear there response to
this!

Thanks in advance
-Dave Vantine


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: SQ - urgent

[Schwartz, Jim]

Then do you log on the relay server? SMTP is all about ownership of the
message. Once the Exchange server hands the message off, it no longer cares
about it. Unless of course you believe in the new e-mail tracking program
developed by Bill Gates. If you forward this e-mail to 50 people you get a
gift certificate to Disney Land.

-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


as I said, I found it, but from the moment it goes to the relay I don't
know anything anymore...
also, why does the message tracking only works on a specific date?

gosh, you have spycams to see how everyone is sitting on their chairs?


-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 June, 2002 7:36 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


Well, let us know how it goes. We are all on the edge of our seats.


-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:29 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


found it, it doesn't seem to work in general, but a date specific search
does function...


-Original Message-
From: Kim Schotanus 
Sent: 25 June, 2002 7:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


That doesn't do anything...

-Original Message-
From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 June, 2002 6:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


PS I'm not sure that constitutes "proof" but its the closest you'll get.

A

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Grafton 
> Sent: 25. juni 2002 18:56
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: SQ - urgent
> 
> 
> 
> > I need to find proof that a message sent last Monday was
> > actually sent out... 
> > where do I find it? (first time this happens, so I never looked into
> > it...)
> 
> Exchange system manager -> Tools -> Message tracking centre
> 
> You do have the logs retained for more than 1 day, eh?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Andy
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]


--
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]

RE: SQ - urgent

[Schwartz, Jim]

-Original Message-
From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: SQ - urgent


Next time have the sender set the Request Read Receipt option.

- Original Message - 
From: "Kim Schotanus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:21 PM
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


That doesn't do anything...

-Original Message-
From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 25 June, 2002 6:57 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: SQ - urgent


PS I'm not sure that constitutes "proof" but its the closest you'll get.

A

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy Grafton 
> Sent: 25. juni 2002 18:56
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: SQ - urgent
> 
> 
> 
> > I need to find proof that a message sent last Monday was
> > actually sent out... 
> > where do I find it? (first time this happens, so I never looked into
> > it...)
> 
> Exchange system manager -> Tools -> Message tracking centre
> 
> You do have the logs retained for more than 1 day, eh?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Andy
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: IMS routing question:

[Schwartz, Jim]

Unless you would like to offload such things as gateway antivirus protection
and content screening. Those are good applications to put on relay servers
like you are talking about.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:02 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: IMS routing question:


A relay server of some kind /can/ be a good idea for security reasons... but
there's no reason that relay server couldn't be an IIS SMTP server instead
of a Sendmail server (i.e. there's nothing magic about Sendmail). If your
IMS server is a dedicated box (no mailboxes) the need for a relay server is
somewhat diminished in my mind.

> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Beeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 10:57 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: IMS routing question:
> 
> Currently, we're running Exchange 5.5 SP4 with hotfixes on an NT4.0 SP6A
> servers.  We have 2 mailbox servers with one IMS/Bridgehead server.  One
> of the mailbox servers also has an IMC with a cost of 99 as a "just in
> case" scenario.
> Currently, our Internet mail comes through the UNIX firewall which
> performs a relay function using post.office.  The firewall is going to be
> changed and will not perform this relay function any longer.  Currently,
> our ISP performs queuing for us for up to 4 days worth of mail should our
> site be unavailable.
> My question is this:  Since we will not longer have this relaying function
> from the UNIX firewalls, the mail will go directly via port 25 to the
> Exchange IMS/bridgehead server.  The UNIX administrator insists that it is
> a good idea to put a UNIX Sendmail server in between the firewall and the
> Exchange server for queuing purposes, however, I don't see the need for
> it.  Can someone please explain to me if this UNIX server is necessary?
> To me it seems like an extra hop for no reason.


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: How to block UCE at MSX55-IMC level

[Schwartz, Jim]

You would need to add another layer to that. Block sender to recipient. One
mans UCE may be what someone else wants to see. It would be a pretty
intensive application to do those types of lookups. All you are doing at the
point is centralizing the delete junk mail rule that users may have set up.
And it still wouldn't work for those spamers that change their send to
address each mail bombing round.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:31 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How to block UCE at MSX55-IMC level


I was thinking the same thing about the reqs. They are all actually nice
features, but I don't see them anywhere as of now.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:02 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: How to block UCE at MSX55-IMC level


A very specific set of requirements that I'm not aware any products
currently meet. What's your budget? I'll whip one up for the right price.

> -Original Message-
> From: Microsoft Exchange List Server
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 12:51 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: How to block UCE at MSX55-IMC level
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> MSX 5.5+SP4
> 
> We are looking for a product that helps out to stop UCE, this product
> should allow the users to send (via email) a particular UCE received 
> to the product-database for this database to block future incoming 
> messages with same sender/subject, also the users should receive a 
> report of all messages
> blocked in a weekly basis.
> 
> Hope you can share your experiences with the list.
> 
> tia
> -er
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Monitoring application for Exchange

[Schwartz, Jim]

But you're a bank...

What about Tivoli?


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 3:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Monitoring application for Exchange


Just swamped and the head honcho wanted some quick answers!! Plus it's
Friday so I might have been feeling a little lazy as well..

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Monitoring application for Exchange


Don't allow internet access there at WF, eh?

There may even be mention of some in the FAQ, but now you've made me too
lazy to go look.

We use ProVision Network Monitor, which is now owned by someone else and I
don't recommend it anyway.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 1:00 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Monitoring application for Exchange


Is there is a product out there that will monitor the
application/system/security NT logs on exchange servers and e-mail certain
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]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5

[Schwartz, Jim]

Well, your TCO just went up by doing BLB. The cost for the extra tapes, the
lost time that the drives are backing up data that has already been backed
up when they could be backing up something else(opportunity costs) and staff
costs to restore and item that could have been undeleted by the user. Be an
even bigger hero to your CEO/CFO by stop doing BLB.

Set a deleted items retention period of 30 days. Write a policy stating that
post 30 days, you have an SLA of 24 hours to restore a mailbox or piece of
mail. Anyone that needs to have a mailbox/message restored will be charged
$150 for the restore. That will cut down on the number of people who want
you to restore the joke they deleted 3 months ago.

You are relying on a crutch to support what amounts to a poor policy and
implementation.

So you know - 2 mailboxes and nobody gets BLB.

-Original Message-
From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 6:23 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5


i have a total of 3600 mailboxes and i do a blb daily included in my full
backup of the exchange server, with each mailbox an average of 1gb and i
have a fiber AIT tape library and use backupexec8.6 and i have not had a
single issue with blb. Yes its true it takes longer than if you dont use blb
and yes its true it increases the tape space beeded, but those are not good
enough reasons to say "Oh BLB sucks, you absolutely should never use BLB"
Backup exec is one of the if not the best backup software for exchange brick
level backups. Arcserve users do not bother with BLB. Obviously i dont do
BLB on all my servers, i do use deleted item retension, i have 82 sites with
114 exchange servers, we dont use blb on all of them, but we do use blb on
exchange servers that hold all the high level execs mailboxes.

-Original Message-
From: "Peña, Botp" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5


Hi Kanee,

I do use blb, but only for a chosen few. I have to do this since it was
consuming our backup window and our tape (we have other things besides mail
:-). I love blb folder level backup. It save me once (my boss gave me thumbs
up when I recovered his beloved folder in minutes :-). I love the mailbox
backup level too, it save me once, too (an admin screwed up with exmerge,
wiping out a dozen mailboxes :-). 

Suffice it to say, blb is a great feature poorly implemented (by the backup
sw or by exchange or both). If blb can backup w the speed and optimization
of _normal_ dir/info store backup, then I will go back to doing full blb
again. This is just humble opinion only. 

Thanks -botp


> -Original Message-
> From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:23 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5
> 
> 
> All you funny guys have not given me a single reason as to 
> why you should not do brick level back ups and your comments 
> carry no value unless you back it up with some substance..and 
> hope none of funny cats are using arcserve as your backup 
> product, if you are i understand why you are so scared of 
> brick level backups...
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:36 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5
> 
> 
> LOL! It's funny. 
> 
> I insert one little word and I agree with you:
> 
> ITS ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY TO *NOT* DO BRICK LEVEL BACKUPS, IT 
> WILL SAVE YOU SO MUCH HEADACHE AND HEART ACHE LATER..TRUST ME.
> 
> William
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of kanee
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 4:32 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Veritas Netbackup error on MSX 5.5
> 
> 
> This has been a known issue with veritas products. The 
> mapi32.dll file is very sensitive and reports errors on 
> messages as cannot open and thus will show the status of 
> backup as failed. There isnt really much you can do about 
> this, except ask the user to delete the message its 
> referencing in the error message from his mailbox and empty 
> it from deleted items. 
> 
> I have spent some time with veritas and they point fingers at 
> microsoft and i spoke to microsoft and they point the fingers 
> back to veritas, veritas knows of this issue and they say 
> they are looking at a solution and should be out in the next 
> build for backup exec8.6, i know you use netbackup so maybe 
> you should look into their next build for netbackup. Even 
> though this error pops up and the overall status of the 
> backup job shows up as failed, the backup in actuality is 
> successful, you can restore the users mailbox and the only 
> thing missing would be those messages that it reported as 
> corrupted or cannot open. So dont loose any sleep over this 
> yo

RE: Mail loop....

[Schwartz, Jim]

Check it again. Go to the mailbox and check the OOO rules and normal rules.
If nothing is forwarding to the internet, it may be just a matter of time
before the last message that was looping dies a horrible death.

-Original Message-
From: Kelly Leavitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:52 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Mail loop


OOO was disabled when I disabled forward to internet. Any more ideas? I
think the problem in on the receiving end.

Thanks,
Kelly

> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Mail loop
> 
> 
> If it's still looping and you've left on OOO, check the OOO 
> rules on the
> user. Some folks use the rule sets in OOO to auto-reply or 
> auto-forward to
> the internet.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Kelly Leavitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:27 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Mail loop
> 
> 
> NT 4.0 SP 6a
> Exchange 5.5, SP 4
> 
> I'm getting the following message from an auto reply to an 
> internet address
> (I know auto reply to Internet = BAD). Anyway, how do I stop it? I've
> disabled reply to the internet, stopped and started the IMC 
> and we're still
> getting them. We get them every 5 minutes, with all times 
> except "Date: Wed,
> 12 Jun 2002 11:29:19 -0400" incremented each time.
> 
> I suspect that there is nothing I can do from this side, but 
> I could be
> wrong.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kelly
> 
> > --
> > From:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:MAILER-DAEMON@
> SMTP1.MX.PITDC
> 1.STARGATE.NET]
> > Sent:   Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:09:54 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject:failure notice
> > Auto forwarded by a Rule
> > 
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at smtp1.mx.pitdc1.stargate.net.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the 
> following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
> 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6)
> 
> --- Below this line is a copy of the message.
> 
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Received: (qmail 11780 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2002 
> 18:09:52 -
> Received: from 
> dap-208-40-156-159.nfas.perrysville.sns234.pa.stargate.net
> (HELO mti.millenniatec.com) (208.40.156.159)
>   by smtp1.mx.pitdc1.stargate.net with SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 
> 18:09:52 -
> Thread-Index: AcISPJIiJAuNm7sgTheoK2IIKfU7Qg==
> Received: from MTI ([192.100.0.17]) by mti.millenniatec.com 
> with Microsoft
> SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:10:53 -0400
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Finder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Finder re solder and dross
> content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
> Importance: normal
> Priority: normal
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:29:19 -0400
> Return-Receipt-To: "Finder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>   boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C21225.EB657520"
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2002 18:10:53.0828 (UTC)
> FILETIME=[7DD58C40:01C2123C]
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 loop....

[Schwartz, Jim]

If it's still looping and you've left on OOO, check the OOO rules on the
user. Some folks use the rule sets in OOO to auto-reply or auto-forward to
the internet.

-Original Message-
From: Kelly Leavitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail loop


NT 4.0 SP 6a
Exchange 5.5, SP 4

I'm getting the following message from an auto reply to an internet address
(I know auto reply to Internet = BAD). Anyway, how do I stop it? I've
disabled reply to the internet, stopped and started the IMC and we're still
getting them. We get them every 5 minutes, with all times except "Date: Wed,
12 Jun 2002 11:29:19 -0400" incremented each time.

I suspect that there is nothing I can do from this side, but I could be
wrong.

Thanks,
Kelly

> --
> From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1.STARGATE.NET]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 2:09:54 PM
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:  failure notice
> Auto forwarded by a Rule
> 
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at smtp1.mx.pitdc1.stargate.net.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
This message is looping: it already has my Delivered-To line. (#5.4.6)

--- Below this line is a copy of the message.

Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: (qmail 11780 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2002 18:09:52 -
Received: from dap-208-40-156-159.nfas.perrysville.sns234.pa.stargate.net
(HELO mti.millenniatec.com) (208.40.156.159)
  by smtp1.mx.pitdc1.stargate.net with SMTP; 12 Jun 2002 18:09:52 -
Thread-Index: AcISPJIiJAuNm7sgTheoK2IIKfU7Qg==
Received: from MTI ([192.100.0.17]) by mti.millenniatec.com with Microsoft
SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4453); Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:10:53 -0400
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Finder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Finder re solder and dross
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
Importance: normal
Priority: normal
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:29:19 -0400
Return-Receipt-To: "Finder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_=_NextPart_001_01C21225.EB657520"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2002 18:10:53.0828 (UTC)
FILETIME=[7DD58C40:01C2123C]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp

[Schwartz, Jim]

Nope. I leave that type of restricting to the folks that know firewalls.

-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp


What?  You mean I can limit what happens on my network?

Wow


Don Ely - NMBOTWBAS and then some
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp


Limit the number of connections and limit the size of the mail. Connection
reset. Bye-bye.

If you're so concerned with not "exposing" your Exchange server directly to
the internet, then place a relay server behind your firewall to accept mail
from External sources and then pass the mail to your Exchange servers.
Anyone trying to get to your relaying server has to go through the firewall
and that traffic can be analyzed for any sort of attack that someone may
think up (not likely, SMTP has been around for a while). By putting the
relaying server in the DMZ (look up what a DMZ does) you have mail sitting
out there where it shouldn't be. Any server in the DMZ should be considered
expendable. Mail sitting on an expendable server keeps me up at night.

-Original Message-
From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp


Don, what if I sent you 100,000 messages at the same time?  What if your
clients configured no limit to messages and I sent you 1,000 messages with
100mb attachments.  Internet mail is down.  Explain that to the ceo.

Jason Cook 
J.H. Ellwood and Associates 
Network Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp

How the hell can a server be taken down with a DoS to port 25?  You don't
open the entire exchange server to the internet, only a dumba$$ would do
that.  All that is required for exchange having external access is port 25.

Your theory suggests someone would actually open the entire server up to the
world.  As a side note, if I want to DoS you, I'm not going to "just" pick
your mail server, I'm going to pick your entire network.

Don Ely - NMBOTWBAS and then some
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp


Andy & Chris --

I guess our needs here are somehwat different, perhaps.  We don't use
Exchange in the DMZ (that's ridiculous overkill) but we do have relays out
there ... and we lock 'em down to specific ports internally as well.  I
disagree that it would be "just as harmful as in the DMZ", though ...
perform a DoS on a box in the DMZ, you only kill communications through that
one box.  DoS the Exchange Server, bam -- you just lost ALL email services.
Granted, we've got more systems to support, but that's the price we pay for
the security and redundancy that comes with it.

And Chris, you asked to "demonstrate an exploit" ... we prefer to not wait
for one to be demonstrated, but rather do the best we can to preemptively
protect ourselves before one is found: use relays in the DMZ, and mix relay
products so what exploits one may not be expoitable on another.  Have
different flavors of antivirus protection at the relay, Exchange, and at the
client.

Like I said before though, it ain't right for everybody ... it takes some
bank to make it happen.  Our requirements here are a little more anal than
others'.

Jon


> -Original Message-
> From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
> 
> 
> On specific ports? Sure, why not?
> 
> I'd allow 443 to an inside box.  It requires authentication and it's 
> encrypted.  Any vulnerability in the application itself would be just 
> as harmful in the DMZ.
> 
> I'd allow 25 to an inside box.  The endpoint is a system that accepts 
> the mail and scans it for viruses and malicious content.  Any 
> vulnerability in the application would be almost as harmful in the 
> DMZ.
> 
> As it stands I have half the number of systems to secure in my design 
> as you do in yours.  If we both block 98% of the vulnerabilities on 
> those systems, you're less secure.  I contend that I can do better 
> than you given fewer systems to focus on.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that there aren't good uses for a DMZ. There are. 
> Exchange just isn't one

RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp

[Schwartz, Jim]

Limit the number of connections and limit the size of the mail. Connection
reset. Bye-bye.

If you're so concerned with not "exposing" your Exchange server directly to
the internet, then place a relay server behind your firewall to accept mail
from External sources and then pass the mail to your Exchange servers.
Anyone trying to get to your relaying server has to go through the firewall
and that traffic can be analyzed for any sort of attack that someone may
think up (not likely, SMTP has been around for a while). By putting the
relaying server in the DMZ (look up what a DMZ does) you have mail sitting
out there where it shouldn't be. Any server in the DMZ should be considered
expendable. Mail sitting on an expendable server keeps me up at night.

-Original Message-
From: Cook, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp


Don, what if I sent you 100,000 messages at the same time?  What if your
clients configured no limit to messages and I sent you 1,000 messages with
100mb attachments.  Internet mail is down.  Explain that to the ceo.

Jason Cook 
J.H. Ellwood and Associates 
Network Administrator 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


-Original Message-
From: Ely, Don [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp

How the hell can a server be taken down with a DoS to port 25?  You don't
open the entire exchange server to the internet, only a dumba$$ would do
that.  All that is required for exchange having external access is port 25.

Your theory suggests someone would actually open the entire server up to the
world.  As a side note, if I want to DoS you, I'm not going to "just" pick
your mail server, I'm going to pick your entire network.

Don Ely - NMBOTWBAS and then some
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Original Message-
From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:53 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp


Andy & Chris --

I guess our needs here are somehwat different, perhaps.  We don't use
Exchange in the DMZ (that's ridiculous overkill) but we do have relays out
there ... and we lock 'em down to specific ports internally as well.  I
disagree that it would be "just as harmful as in the DMZ", though ...
perform a DoS on a box in the DMZ, you only kill communications through that
one box.  DoS the Exchange Server, bam -- you just lost ALL email services.
Granted, we've got more systems to support, but that's the price we pay for
the security and redundancy that comes with it.

And Chris, you asked to "demonstrate an exploit" ... we prefer to not wait
for one to be demonstrated, but rather do the best we can to preemptively
protect ourselves before one is found: use relays in the DMZ, and mix relay
products so what exploits one may not be expoitable on another.  Have
different flavors of antivirus protection at the relay, Exchange, and at the
client.

Like I said before though, it ain't right for everybody ... it takes some
bank to make it happen.  Our requirements here are a little more anal than
others'.

Jon


> -Original Message-
> From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 3:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
> 
> 
> On specific ports? Sure, why not?
> 
> I'd allow 443 to an inside box.  It requires authentication
> and it's encrypted.  Any vulnerability in the application 
> itself would be just as harmful in the DMZ.
> 
> I'd allow 25 to an inside box.  The endpoint is a system that
> accepts the mail and scans it for viruses and malicious 
> content.  Any vulnerability in the application would be 
> almost as harmful in the DMZ.
> 
> As it stands I have half the number of systems to secure in
> my design as you do in yours.  If we both block 98% of the 
> vulnerabilities on those systems, you're less secure.  I 
> contend that I can do better than you given fewer systems to focus on.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that there aren't good uses for a DMZ.
> There are. Exchange just isn't one of them.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Posted At: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:53 PM
> Posted To: Microsoft Exchange
> Conversation: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
> Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
> 
> 
> So you'd allow "from any" to your inside boxes?  That would
> keep me awake at night. :)
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Webb, Andy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:47 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: lesser of the evils - ssl or smtp
> > 
> > 
> > but you're not talking about a good use of the DMZ.  the
> DMZ should be
> > an end point, not a hop.  it doesn't really matter where your SMTP
> > virus scanner sits - you should have one, I agree.  but on

RE: MEC 2002

[Schwartz, Jim]

<>

-Original Message-
From: Clark, John A (FUSA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC 2002


It appears as though he needs a lot more than just a beer

-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC 2002


<>

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC 2002


Somebody give Gary his medication.

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 Slinger, Gary
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 2:18 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC 2002


It's just a thought, but did it occur to you to actually look at the
fscking MEC website?  And perchance at where the hotels are in relation
to the conference center?  Or even the part of the clearly totally
irrelevant page where it STATES that shuttles will be available from
some of the hotels just like EVERY OTHER FREAKIN' MEC CONFERENCE 

Or was that too difficult?  Or is your time somehow more valuable than
ours?

-Original Message-
From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 20:21
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: MEC 2002


Are shuttles available from hotels around the conference?  I don't think
I will be able to get a car.
 

Michael Woodruff 
System Administrator 
  inChord Communications Inc. 
A group of communications companies providing clients unlimited
visibility 
614.543.6405 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

personalmail

 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


**
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. 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: A mistake was made...

[Schwartz, Jim]

Ah, yes. Assign minion to get on that immediately and have it complete
before we return from the cigar bar.

-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


No, _we_ could recover from that...  there's a difference :)

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 13:14
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


You can still recover from that. Get a big magnet and go to town.

-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


If mailbox deletion fails, try FDISK on the server, see if that helps.

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 21:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


If it is offensive and you don't want users reading the item then ExMerge
will work. From Q260037: 
If the original message was forwarded with a different subject, the ExMerge
utility cannot delete the message based on the original message subject line
or MTS-ID. 

If the Item Retention option is turned on, the message may be available for
recovery on the Outlook client.

If the message is very sensitive and needs to be totally eradicated... It's
a mailbox, by mailbox deletion.

-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


Use ExMerge to pull it out of the stores.

Nate Couch
EDS Messaging

> --
> From: Mitchell Mike
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2002 14:02
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  A mistake was made...
> 
> Outlook 98.  exchange 5.5 sp4
> 
> User sent out an eMAIL to a large distribution list by mistake.  The 
> Recall Message action feature did not work very well on this. This was 
> very sensitive eMAIL that went out and needs to be trapped before too 
> many people read it.  What can I do?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Mitchell
> Systems eMAIL Administrator
> Alverno Information Services
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (317) 532-7800 ext. 6211
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]

RE: A mistake was made...

[Schwartz, Jim]

You can still recover from that. Get a big magnet and go to town.

-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


If mailbox deletion fails, try FDISK on the server, see if that helps.

-Original Message-
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 21:37
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


If it is offensive and you don't want users reading the item then ExMerge
will work. From Q260037: 
If the original message was forwarded with a different subject, the ExMerge
utility cannot delete the message based on the original message subject line
or MTS-ID. 

If the Item Retention option is turned on, the message may be available for
recovery on the Outlook client.

If the message is very sensitive and needs to be totally eradicated... It's
a mailbox, by mailbox deletion.

-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


Use ExMerge to pull it out of the stores.

Nate Couch
EDS Messaging

> --
> From: Mitchell Mike
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2002 14:02
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  A mistake was made...
> 
> Outlook 98.  exchange 5.5 sp4
> 
> User sent out an eMAIL to a large distribution list by mistake.  The
> Recall Message action feature did not work very well on this.
> This was very sensitive eMAIL that went out and needs to be trapped before
> too many people read it.  What can I do?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Mitchell
> Systems eMAIL Administrator
> Alverno Information Services
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (317) 532-7800 ext. 6211
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: A mistake was made...

[Schwartz, Jim]

You lost me for a second there Craig. We were talking about a message not
the entire mailbox, but the same principle applies to a "deleted" message
correct?

-Original Message-
From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


A mailbox is not a container, but rather a view of a subset of the objects
within a container having some common attribute (i.e. belong to a specific
mailbox).  Deleting a mailbox is NOT the same thing as deleting a container
and its contents.  Deleting a mailbox merely deletes a view and nulls out
the appropriate attributes.  Deleting a mailbox does not cause a message
object to be expunged, at least not directly.

Think of it like this.  If a TV show is only available on cable channel 89
and you eliminate 100% of the subscribers that had the ability to view
channel 89, that does not destroy the source.  It might lead to a garbage
collection exercise that will cause a purge to occur, but deleting the views
is not deleting the data.



-Original Message-----
From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 1:37 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


If it is offensive and you don't want users reading the item then ExMerge
will work. From Q260037: 
If the original message was forwarded with a different subject, the ExMerge
utility cannot delete the message based on the original message subject line
or MTS-ID. 

If the Item Retention option is turned on, the message may be available for
recovery on the Outlook client.

If the message is very sensitive and needs to be totally eradicated... It's
a mailbox, by mailbox deletion.

-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


Use ExMerge to pull it out of the stores.

Nate Couch
EDS Messaging

> --
> From: Mitchell Mike
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2002 14:02
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  A mistake was made...
> 
> Outlook 98.  exchange 5.5 sp4
> 
> User sent out an eMAIL to a large distribution list by mistake.  The
> Recall Message action feature did not work very well on this.
> This was very sensitive eMAIL that went out and needs to be trapped before
> too many people read it.  What can I do?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Mitchell
> Systems eMAIL Administrator
> Alverno Information Services
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (317) 532-7800 ext. 6211
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: A mistake was made...

[Schwartz, Jim]

If it is offensive and you don't want users reading the item then ExMerge
will work. From Q260037: 
If the original message was forwarded with a different subject, the ExMerge
utility cannot delete the message based on the original message subject line
or MTS-ID. 

If the Item Retention option is turned on, the message may be available for
recovery on the Outlook client.

If the message is very sensitive and needs to be totally eradicated... It's
a mailbox, by mailbox deletion.

-Original Message-
From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 3:13 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: A mistake was made...


Use ExMerge to pull it out of the stores.

Nate Couch
EDS Messaging

> --
> From: Mitchell Mike
> Reply To: Exchange Discussions
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2002 14:02
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  A mistake was made...
> 
> Outlook 98.  exchange 5.5 sp4
> 
> User sent out an eMAIL to a large distribution list by mistake.  The 
> Recall Message action feature did not work very well on this.
> This was very sensitive eMAIL that went out and needs to be trapped before
> too many people read it.  What can I do?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike Mitchell
> Systems eMAIL Administrator
> Alverno Information Services
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (317) 532-7800 ext. 6211
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Adding some HTML to all outbound messages?

[Schwartz, Jim]

Not to mention that some of the net nazi black hole lists will add your
domain because they hate HTML so much.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 10:19 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Adding some HTML to all outbound messages?


Phil, I would urge your CEO to think twice about this. There are a few
reasons.
A) Many folks don't want HTML email.
B) A 10K graphic just eats up space, makes downloading of email slow, and
generally is useless to anyone but the sender. It's a cute trick, but that's
it. It adds NOTHING of value.

Personally if a company started sending us emails with that in everyone, we
could quickly ask them to stop or block them from sending us email.

-Original Message-
From: Phil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 7:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Adding some HTML to all outbound messages?


Exchange 5.5 SP4

Out CEO wants us to add some HTML to the top of all outbound messages. It is
a graphic with a hotlink to our website. 10K total size.

Can I configure this from the 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: Outlook appointments on Exchange

[Schwartz, Jim]

Translation for the reading impaired: leave it alone.

-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:01 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Outlook appointments on Exchange


My rigorous Exchange maintenance involves a beer and some brats.

> -Original Message-
> From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:58 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Outlook appointments on Exchange
> 
> 
> Explain what you mean by the phrase "rigorous maintenance".
> Your administrative practices may be the root cause of the 
> problem you are trying to solve.  
> 
> Serdar Soysal
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:20 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Outlook appointments on Exchange
> 
> 
> We're having a severe problem with a few mailboxes on our
> Exchange 5.5 server, even though we maintain a rigorous 
> maintenance schedule on our stores.  A few users (all running 
> Outlook 2000 SR-1) can no longer respond to any appointment 
> invitations -- doing so causes outlook.exe to fail with a Dr. 
> Watson access violation error.  Running /cleanfreebusy does 
> not cause Outlook to hang (as happens when some calendar 
> corruption occurs), but it doesn't solve the problem, either. 
>  This problem follows the user to other workstations as well 
> -- it's definitely tied to the mailbox, not the client. 
> Exmerge can successfully pull down the contents of the 
> mailbox, but I'd rather not use that to recreate the mailbox 
> because it will break all the existing appointment links.  
> TechNet and newsgroup scans have provided zero solutions ... 
> any ideas, anyone?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jon
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server

[Schwartz, Jim]

Yes, but IBM finds this compelling need to place an e on to everything for
some odd reason. I wonder how much the marketing genius got paid for coming
up with that idea.

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 1:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server


ProLiants have that, we just don't call it that.

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 Andy Grafton
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:15 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: kinda OT - RAID on the exchange server


Ed asks;

> Please share what RAID5e is.

More info:

http://www-5.ibm.com/pl/eserver/xseries/ulotki/psref-raidtech.pdf

Mind the wrap, mind the .pdf.

Andy

Creuna Danmark A/S
Snaregade 10
1205 København K
Denmark

Tel : +45 22 68 58 23
Fax : +45 70 20 72 42

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)

[Schwartz, Jim]

But will it warm the syrup for my waffles?

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:54 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)


But,but! The magazine on the plane said that the next version will be SQL
based and wireless! ;)



-Original Message-
From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)


Neither will ESE98 being ported to SQL Server nor does the next version of
Exchange have an SQL Server based database engine.

As I mentioned already. Please check that information with the source you
got it from and stop posting plain wrong information here which might
confuse other people.



> -Original Message-
> From: Felicity Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:21 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)
> 
> I know that, I was making a dumb joke about the fact that SQL Server
will
> be providing the next database engine for the next version of
Exchange.
> And the code name for the next version of SQL Server is Yukon.
> 
> Can you confirm that ESE98 is being ported to SQL Server?
> 
> TIA
> 
> --Felicity
> > The next version of Exchange is not codenamed Yukon.
> >
> > William 
> > *Titanium* Racing Bikes
> > "Why ride when you can fly?" - William Lefkovics
> > www.airborne.net
> > 
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Felicity
Smith
> > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:05 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)
> >
> >
> > Unified Messaging is faceing pressures from two opposite directions.
> > One from Americans with Disabilities Act which requires greater
richness
> > - ie text to voice, braille, etc, and at the opposite pole - greater
> > thinness - ie minimalism for text based phones - which strip away
all
> > conten but text, and then compress words for instance - removing
vowels,
> > TLA's etc.
> >
> > MIS will now be included with the next version of Exchange (code
name
> > Yukon).
> >
> > --Felicity
> >
> > > That'd be worth reading.  I'm _still_ nicking odd quotes from you
when
> >
> > > I need to compare messaging to dial-tone availability :)
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 00:13
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)
> > >
> > >
> > > Catch me in the right mood and maybe I will do a data dump for you
. .
> >
> > > .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Leonard Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 21:33
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: Messaging & collaboration (Unified Messaging)
> > >
> > >
> > > Iam looking for information on:
> > > 1. Messaging & Collaboration
> > > 2. Unified Messaging
> > >
> > > The type of information I am looking for is on:
> > > 1. Why it is happening (who it is for)
> > > 2. Who is making it happening (vendors)
> > > 3. How is it happening (solutions)
> > >
> > > Looking for Articles?  Consortiums?
> > >
> > > Note: I've got Technet, so I already have the Microsoft view on
this
> > > topic.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advanced,
> > > Leonard
> > >
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.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_

RE: SMTP log analysis

[Schwartz, Jim]

Below inline.

-Original Message-
From: Lindsay Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 11:06 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP log analysis


Okay I need an opinion on exactly what is going on in this log file.  Just a
fresh opinion to see if I'm just being a bonehead.  Thanks in advance...
 
2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionCommand
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 EHLO - aus-exch-01.ztechinc.com 0 0 4 0 125 SMTP -
- - -
>>This is your server say Hi!

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionResponse
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 - - 250-wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com 0 0 31 0 266
SMTP - - - -
>> This is mail-store.com saying it got your EHLO

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionCommand
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 MAIL - FROM:<>+SIZE=3169 0 0 4 0 266 SMTP - - - -
>> From: is <> (note, some hosts reject this)

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionResponse
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 - - 250+Sender+<>+and+extensions+(SIZE=3169)+Ok 0
0 43 0 407 SMTP - - - -
>> They got the From data fine.

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionCommand
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 RCPT - TO:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0 0 4 0 407 SMTP
- - - -
>> Your server telling the other host to whom the mail should be delivered
to.

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionResponse
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 - - 250+Recipient+<+Ok">[EMAIL PROTECTED]>+Ok
  0 0 39 0 547 SMTP - - - -
>> Their server is OK with that.

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionCommand
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 DATA - - 0 0 4 0 547 SMTP - - - -
>>Your server telling their server that data is on the way.

2002-06-03 09:29:29 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionResponse
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 - - 354+Ok+Send+data+ending+with+. 0 0
42 0 672 SMTP - - - -
>> Their server is ready for data.

2002-06-03 09:29:30 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionResponse
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 - -
250+Message+received:+20020603091609.HFAI9038.wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com@au
s-exch-01.ztechinc.com 0 0 98 0 2000 SMTP - - - -
>> Them telling you that they've gotten the message and now have accepted
responsibility to deliver it.

2002-06-03 09:29:30 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionCommand
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 QUIT - - 0 0 4 0 2000 SMTP - - - -
>> You closing the connection

2002-06-03 09:29:30 wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com OutboundConnectionResponse
SMTPSVC1 AUS-EXCH-01 - 25 - -
221+wmpmta04-app.mail-store.com+ESMTP+server+closing+connection 0 0 63 0
2125 SMTP - - - -
>> All done.

What's the problem?

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: SMTP message

[Schwartz, Jim]

Brackets around the rcpt to:<>

-Original Message-
From: Ed Esgro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: SMTP message


I am using Exchange Server 5.5
I am using an application that establishes an SMTP connection to my SMTP
server and sends an SMTP message to the outside world. The problem is the
message will not be delivered. It appears that the SMTP server will not see
the recipient in its local site and then bounce the message back
undeliverable. Of course the recipient isn't in the local site because it is
an outside email address.

Example of what I am doing.

Telnet mail.stainsafe.com 25

Mail from:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Rcpt to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Data

Subject: test message


This comes back undeliverable almost immediately. It appears to me that the
SMTP server is not trying to send the message out, it is looking for the
recipient locally and then rejecting it because the recipient doesn't exist.
How can I have the SMTP server send the message to the MX server of
notmydomain.com? If I am confusing you all I apologize. Thanks for the help.

Ed

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Trying to keep Exchange (et al) in our org

[Schwartz, Jim]

Bankers! 
SYSM is the only way to go.

-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Trying to keep Exchange (et al) in our org


OfficeVision on the mainframe!!!

-Original Message-
From: John Matteson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 2:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Trying to keep Exchange (et al) in our org


You might want to get your buyers club card from O'Reliy and Associates
(www.ora.com) and get familiar with *nix.

You could always suggest that instead of running Notes, go all the way back
to Netscape mail server, or ISOCOR's X.400 mixer and mailbox server.

John Matteson; Exchange Manager 
Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards 
(404) 239 - 2981

Defeat is a state of mind. No one is ever defeated until defeat has been
accepted as a reality. To me, defeat in anything is merely temporary, and
its punishment is but an urge for me to greater effort to achieve my goal.
Defeat simply tells me that something is wrong in my doing; it is a path
leading to success and truth. --Bruce Lee



-Original Message-
From: Smith Joseph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Trying to keep Exchange (et al) in our org


All,

Our corporate standards include an NT4 domain and Exchange 5.5 (and has for
several years now).  We have 13 plants located in various countries around
the world.  Our corporate HQ (located in Finland) has hired a new IS
director who has given us a directive that, in lieu of the anticipated
AD/Win2K/E2K rollout, we will be changing our backend infrastructure to
novell e-directory/lotus notes/linux servers!

Now, I am as open-minded as the next guy about the prospect of padding my
resume with all sorts of new applications, but that seems a bit drastic.
Apparently, it all comes down to money.  

Besides, I love my E55sp4 server; it NEVER gives me any problems.

Has anyone else experienced this?  Which would be more painful short-term?
long-term?: the AD/Win2K/E2K or Novell/Lotus/Linux?  I get the impression
that this is a knee-jerk reaction to Microsoft licensing costs.  

Any thoughts, experiences, or warnings concerning this migration would be
appreciated.   

Sincerely,
Joseph Smith
MCSE (NT4 + 2K), CCNA, Network+

Network Administrator
Perlos, Inc.
5201 Alliance Gateway
Fort Worth, TX 76178-3729
Work: 817-224-9012
[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: Installing Exchange Admin on .net server

[Schwartz, Jim]

Yes, but the server installs the application so fast that I don't have time
to read it.

-Original Message-
From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:25 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Installing Exchange Admin on .net server


There's documentation?  How amazing!
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Hummert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: Installing Exchange Admin on .net server


Yea that's because it's not supported yet. They say that if you read the
release documentation


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of missy koslosky
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:17 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: Installing Exchange Admin on .net server


Not that I know of.  Terminal services rock.
- Original Message -
From: "CHRIS H" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: Installing Exchange Admin on .net server


Has anyone had luck gettng Exchange Admin installed on .net server? I know
it is a beta, but it seems it sees Exchange Server and says "Whoa, stop!"
without waiting to see what you are going to install.

Exchange Server 5.5
Microsoft





Issue Description:

Exchange Server 5.5 is not supported by this version of Windows. For more
information, refer to http://www.microsoft.com/exchange .

Contact Information:

Microsoft Web site: http://www.microsoft.com
Telephone: (425) 635-7172 (U.S.) or (905) 568-3503 (Canada)


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Identifying your Exchange Org

[Schwartz, Jim]

Bankers! 
The SMTP address should be unique and you may be able to code the web app to
get that information, but it's a lot of work in place of having the user do
it themselves.

-Original Message-
From: Hatley, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Identifying your Exchange Org


Yes, I tried that, they did not want to have them type anything in

 -Original Message-
From:   Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent:   Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:RE: Identifying your Exchange Org

Is this for an internal BofA migration? If so, why not have the users enter
their e-mail address and you can determine their org for them.

> -Original Message-
> From: Hatley, Ken [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:32 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Identifying your Exchange Org
> 
> 
> In preparation for Exchange 2000 migration, we have created 
> an online survey to help identify what Exchange 5.5 
> applications need to be migrated and gather contact 
> information to help expedite the planning.  The survey starts 
> by asking you to click on your Exchange Organization, but we 
> are worried that people will not know which one they belong.  
> I had an idea to create some way for them to click on a 
> button and tell them which Org that they belong to.  I was 
> thinking we could run some VB script that identifies their 
> Exchange Server by looking at their registry and comparing a 
> list of known servers.  Does this sound like it is feasible?  
> Anyone ever had to do anything like this?  Anyone have any 
> sample code to assist if this seems like the right way to go?
> 
> -
> Ken Hatley, MCSE
> Messaging Consolidation
> 972.997.9261
> page [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> or 888.262.2337 pin 1112859
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: LDAP in Exchange 2000

[Schwartz, Jim]

Yes. Thanks for the clarification.

-Original Message-
From: Siegfried Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:42 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000


Note that this procedure only applies if you use a MAPI client like
Outlook 97/98/2000/2002 (98 & 2000 in CW mode only).



> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:37 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000
> 
> Depends on the version of Outlook. Back level clients will query the
E2K
> server which uses DSproxy services to do the lookup for the client.
> Outlook
> 2000 and XP are given a nearby GC server to do it's own lookups.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 4:09 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000
> 
> 
> Thanks Chris for opening me up on this. So, now if I need to configure
> someone's Outlook using Internet E-mail profile using POP3/SMTP , I
wonder
> how would the Outlook Client will now get the organization's e-mail
> addresses ?
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:44 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000
> 
> E2K has no directory of its own, thus nothing to connect to via LDAP.
> You'll
> need to point the client machines to the same directory that Exchange
> uses.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:38 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: LDAP in Exchange 2000
> >
> >
> > Any idea,  how do I install LDAP under Exchange 2000. Right
> > now when I use Exchange System Manager under Server -->
> > Protocols I don't see this as a protocol  and hence when I
> > try to do LDAP quarry from a client machine it comes back
> > with an error about "Operational Failure" .
> >
> > Please, any help in this regard will be greatly appreciated.
> > I searched Knowledge Bases of Microsoft without much success.
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: LDAP in Exchange 2000

[Schwartz, Jim]

Depends on the version of Outlook. Back level clients will query the E2K
server which uses DSproxy services to do the lookup for the client. Outlook
2000 and XP are given a nearby GC server to do it's own lookups.

-Original Message-
From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 4:09 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000


Thanks Chris for opening me up on this. So, now if I need to configure
someone's Outlook using Internet E-mail profile using POP3/SMTP , I wonder
how would the Outlook Client will now get the organization's e-mail
addresses ?


-Original Message-
From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 3:44 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: LDAP in Exchange 2000

E2K has no directory of its own, thus nothing to connect to via LDAP. You'll
need to point the client machines to the same directory that Exchange uses.

> -Original Message-
> From: Gagrani, Kishore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: LDAP in Exchange 2000
>
>
> Any idea,  how do I install LDAP under Exchange 2000. Right
> now when I use Exchange System Manager under Server -->
> Protocols I don't see this as a protocol  and hence when I
> try to do LDAP quarry from a client machine it comes back
> with an error about "Operational Failure" .
>
> Please, any help in this regard will be greatly appreciated.
> I searched Knowledge Bases of Microsoft without much success.

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: MEC Registration now OPEN

[Schwartz, Jim]

Ding! I'm sorry, you've already spent that money and my airline tickets are
non-refundable. Don't forget that one.

-Original Message-
From: Darcy Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 2:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC Registration now OPEN


The strategy here is to register *way* in advance to avoid the end of year
"we can't spend any money so you can't go" panic.

Darcy

-Original Message-
From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:21 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: MEC Registration now OPEN


I have begun begging in the hope that before October, my boss will get
sick of me and shell out the funds.

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Posted At: Thursday, May 23, 2002 04:18 PM
> Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List
> Conversation: MEC Registration now OPEN
> Subject: MEC Registration now OPEN
> 
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/corpevents/mec2002 
> 
> Martin Blackstone
> Director, Information Technologies
> Superior Access Insurance Services
> 949.470.2111 x279
> 
> -Better not take a dog on the space shuttle, because if he 
> sticks his head out when you're coming home his face might burn 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]
> 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Message giving false reports?

[Schwartz, Jim]

Two reasons possible.
An orphaned object still exists for that address in the DL that they are
sending to or one of the users still has the user listed as a delegate.

-Original Message-
From: Olds, Dominic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Message giving false reports?


> Hi all
> Just a quick one hopefully. I have a user running Outlook XP and when he
> sends a meeting request to anyone on the GAL he gets the following message
> back from the system.
> Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
> 
>   Subject:Stuart Atkin Interview
>   Sent:   22/05/2002 13:38
> 
> The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
> 
>   kuhn, patrick on 22/05/2002 13:38
> The recipient name is not recognized
>   The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=Owen Williams
> Gr;l=OW-MAIL-020522123752Z-18695
> MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:OWMAIL:OW-MAIL
> 
>   smart, paul on 22/05/2002 13:38
> The recipient name is not recognized
>   The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=Owen Williams
> Gr;l=OW-MAIL-020522123752Z-18695
> MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:OWMAIL:OW-MAIL
> 
>   harper, roger on 22/05/2002 13:38
> The recipient name is not recognized
>   The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=Owen Williams
> Gr;l=OW-MAIL-020522123752Z-18695
> MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:OWMAIL:OW-MAIL
> 
> I have no record of any of these users in either of the recipients
> containers, not even hidden or custom recipients although I do know one of
> them used to be an employee until 6 months ago. His account was deleted 3
> months ago.
> I can find no reference to any of these recipients in his contacts folder
> either.
> Where should I be looking for this please.
> Exch 5.5 SP4 on Win2K SP2.
> Many thanks
> Dom

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Routing group bandwidth requirements

[Schwartz, Jim]

I guess the point of it would be YMMV. Depending on your traffic patterns,
your need to regulate traffic between sites by size and or times or to
throttle the connection. With E2K you put in your best guess and if it's not
what you need, it's not that hard to change it. We have two main data
centers with dual OC3's between them. I was going to have all the servers in
one great big routing group and if the network folks whine about all the
chatter, then I'll split them in two.

-Original Message-
From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:39 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Routing group bandwidth requirements


Exchange 2000 resource kit chapter 31 "Reliable always on connectivity is
more important that high bandwdth" this is the only reference I could
find.

There is also a white paper from MS but all it says is "Generally, servers
within a routing group are connected by a high speed network"

I have seen the text in the E2k reskit repeated more times than the
whitepaper.

There must be some stats out there!?

Leo

> I find it very hard to believe there are no stats available as yet, surely
> there are enough installations out there for MS to put their hands up and
> give some detail.
> 
> Leo
> 
> > Just buttering you up so you'll buy me beer.
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:55 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: Routing group bandwidth requirements
> > 
> > 
> > While I appreciate your confidence, this is actually me just guessing.
> > But since MS doesn't care to provide any hard numbers, I took a WAG at
> > what I would do, were it my client's environment I was designing.
> > 
> > M
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Andy David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:47 PM
> > Subject: RE: Routing group bandwidth requirements
> > 
> > 
> > Im Missy's case, Im betting on real life experience.
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:45 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Routing group bandwidth requirements
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Based on what?  Gut feeling?  Or any actual stats?  The only reason I
> > ask is that there's a distinct lack of any best practice or stats yet.
> > My understanding is that, since SMTP is asynchronous, it can still work
> > in low bandwidth environments without the timeouts associated with RPCs.
> > So in theory, messages would just queue if there's not enough bandwidth.
> > 
> > So the thinking then becomes that we only know how low we can go if we
> > know what sort of traffic we're gonna get...
> > 
> > Neil
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Posted At: 23 May 2002 17:11
> > Posted To: Swynk Exchange List
> > Conversation: Routing group bandwidth requirements
> > Subject: Re: Routing group bandwidth requirements
> > 
> > 
> > Well, it's more important that the bandwidth is highly available than it
> > is for the bandwidth to be, say 10 Mb.  But I'd say that your low limit
> > for connectivity would be somewhere around 128 Kbps - but would prefer
> > to see 256 Kbps or better with an RG.
> > 
> > Missy
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Leo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:55 AM
> > Subject: Routing group bandwidth requirements
> > 
> > 
> > What are the typical bandwidth requirements within a routing group. Are
> > there any documented guidelines available?
> > 
> > Regards
> > Leo
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 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, or any of its subsidiary companies.
> > 
> > If you have received this email in error, please
> > contact our Support Desk immediately on
> > 01202-360360 or email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > *
> > 
> > _

RE: Group Mail

[Schwartz, Jim]

I'll have you know that I've obtained the rank of Degenerate, 1st Class.

-Original Message-
From: Felicity Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 4:10 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Group Mail


BTW- I think most of you guys are a bunch of perverts, in case you were
somehow unaware of this fact.

--Felicity
> I searched on the internet and it is a unix utility that does File 
> System Consistency ChecKing.
> 
> I thought it was a Unix applet, only I thought is was a finger like 
> utility.  It thought maybe is was a Microsoft port like eseutil.
> 
> --Felicity
> 
> > Sometimes you feel like a fsck.  Sometimes you don't.
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Orr, Dale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:57 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Group Mail
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ! fsck.
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:53 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Group Mail
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It is a candy bar.
> > > 
> > > Serdar Soysal
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Felicity Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:47 PM
> > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > Subject: RE: Group Mail
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pardon me Chris, but what does fsck mean? I am new to this list 
> > > and Exchange.
> > > 
> > > I checked the resource kit and it is not mentioned there.
> > > 
> > > TIA
> > > 
> > > --Felicity
> > > 
> > > > What the fsck is a Group Mail Pro?
> > > > 
> > > > Is it too much to ask for a properly phrased technical
> > > question once
> > > > in a while? Christ on cracker you people...
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > -Original Message-
> > > > > From: Woodruff, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:31 PM
> > > > > To: Exchange Discussions
> > > > > Subject: Group Mail
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > How exactly does Group Mail Pro send without and SMTP server?
> > > 
> > > _
> > > List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: OT Upgrade question

[Schwartz, Jim]

If your management likes Gartner reports, they suggest that the "must move
off 5.5 date" to be 2Q04.

When you think about non-support, you should also factor in that more and
more technical folks are moving to E2K. The list of people that can run a
5.5 organization is going to get shorter and they'll have a harder time
replacing you when you go work for a company that will upgrade. Just ask the
mainframers how hard a time they had finding qualified Cobol programmers
during Y2K.

-Original Message-
From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 3:15 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: OT Upgrade question


The only reason you have to upgrade is the fact that NT4 & E5.5 are closer
to becoming non-supported.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Omilian
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 12:12 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: OT Upgrade question


We're a smaller
company(
<40 users) and we currently run NT 4.0 and Exchange 5.5.  Both run great and
have been very stable (knock on wood).

My question is how do you approach upper management asking to upgrade to
Windows and Exchange 2000 when they have the "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" mentality?  I've already tried the "additional functionality" route, but
they're not buying it.

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]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Smtp connector gone mad?

[Schwartz, Jim]

OK. Make it so.
I have like 30 domains that we accept mail for. Please give some more
details on EXACTLY what you want to accomplish and we can try to help you
out. Otherwise we're guessing or making stuff up. Some people on this list
have very vivid imaginations and you wouldn't want that.

-Original Message-
From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:47 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Smtp connector gone mad?


Yeah I know I have not provided all the info, sorry.

We have multiple domain names and want to accept messages into the org from
the internet via this connector.

Regards
Leo

> You don't need an SMTP connector for sending and receiving email. 
> that might just be what the "SMTP virtual server" is for?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20
> Posted At: Thursday, May 16, 2002 4:43 PM
> Posted To: Exchange Discussion List
> Conversation: Smtp connector gone mad?
> Subject: RE: Smtp connector gone mad?
> 
> We want to be able to accept incoming email from the internet.
> 
> Leo
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Virus Attack ??

[Schwartz, Jim]

Wrong side of The Pond...

-Original Message-
From: Clark, John A (FUSA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:16 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning???  YIKES!!

-Original Message-
From: Slinger, Gary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


Clue 1:
Exchange Admin program.
"HELP" menu, "Help" topic, "Index" option, type "tracking" and look
at all the pretty little entries that come on up.

Clue 2:
Go on a course

Clue 3:
Hire someone competent to administer your Exchange system.

Clue 4:
Read the fscking FAQ.  I'm thinking Appendix D.


-Original Message-
From: Jorge Cardenas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 14:14
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??


I'm new working with exchange. How I can track the message? I enabled the
track message flag on exchange.

Thanks,
Jorge Cardenas.

-Original Message-
From: Waters, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 7:30 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Virus Attack ??

track the message.  We have gotten one of these, and it came from the
outside.  The text was a message undeliverable, which comes from system
attendant not the postmaster.  When you track it, you will see who it really
has come from.  Then tell the sender they have the Klez and now would be a
good time to get some A/V software and keep it up to date. Jeff

-Original Message-
From: Fioon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Virus Attack ??


Hi

Recently my exchange server (email=postmaster@domain) keep on auto generate
mail to the user inside the address book. I have scanned ! I have tried
everything ! But it still happening ! PLS HELP

Fioon

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:   http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


**
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential
and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any
reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission
in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. 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 stuck in Categorizer

[Schwartz, Jim]

Basically it means you're waiting on AD to give Exchange the location of the
mail server the mailbox resides on or what action to do with the mail. It's
waiting on a response from AD.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:25 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Mail stuck in Categorizer


All,
 I have messages that users are calling me about that say they have been
delayed.  When I look in the Message Tracking System the last thing logged
is: 

SMTP: Messages Submitted to Categorizer

Does anyone know why or how this happens?
How do I get them delivered?

Rick

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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

[Schwartz, Jim]

For a minute I thought they finally made a movie about me.

> -Original Message-
> From: David Florea [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:04 PM
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  RE: Cerification question
> 
> Poop.  J. C., not J. S..
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David Florea 
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Cerification question
> 
> 
> 1.  History of the World, Part I
> 
> 2.  Star Wars Trilogy
> 
> 3.  J. S. Superstar
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Tuip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:42 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Cerification question
> 
> 
> 1. Life of Brian
> 
> 2. Crimson Tide
> 
> 3. Boys from Brazil
> 
> --
> Martin Tuip
> MVP Exchange
> Exchange2000 List owner
> www.exchange-mail.org
> www.sharepointserver.com
> --
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "King, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:51 PM
> Subject: RE: Cerification question
> 
> 
> > 2001 A Space Odyssey
> > Clockwork Orange
> > Full Metal Jacket
> > 
> > Does that mean that I should only work for a dysfunctional company...?
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:31 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: Re: Cerification question
> > 
> > 
> > Well, I just realized that my three current favorites really aren't
> > chick flicks, so maybe I misspoke.  But there's no Monty Python, so...
> > 
> > 1.  Dogma
> > 2. Apollo 13
> > 3.  12 Angry Men
> > 
> > They may up my estrogen allotment when they find out about this,
> > though...
> > 
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Randal, Phil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:15 AM
> > Subject: RE: Cerification question
> > 
> > 
> > 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]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _
> > List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Messed up PST

[Schwartz, Jim]

Mongo S.O.L.

> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:28 PM
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  RE: Messed up PST
> 
> Mongo no backup pst.
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 4:22 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Messed up PST
> 
> 
> You mean "restore from the user's backup that they maintain and test
> frequently". Right?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:09 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: Re: Messed up PST
> 
> 
> Restore from backup.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Plahtinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 3:56 PM
> Subject: Messed up PST
> 
> 
> 
> I have a user that has a messed up .PST file.  I can open all the mail
> however mail after than a certain date ( anything older than 2
> years)cannot
> be moved or deleted.  I ran the inbox repair tool
> (scanpst.exe) and it didn't fix it.  Any help
> would be appreciated.
> Thanks much.
> 
> Matt Plahtinsky
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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]
> 
> --
> 
> 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: I need to send emails as another ....

[Schwartz, Jim]

www.hireacodemonkey.com

-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


Cool.  Where can I download this important product or service?  

> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:52 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> OK.
> A Dr. wants to send medical records to the CDC or other informational 
> gathering body. The e-mail needs to be verified that it does not 
> violate HIPAA, Graham-Leach-Bliley, and or the Code of Federal
> Regulations Title 21
> - Part 11 with respect to FDA clinical trials. You pick.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> Hey, man!  If it doesn't apply to *my* industry, then the
> solution shouldn't
> exist for anyone...  
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:45 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > What about a workflow/compliance application? For example, a message 
> > is sent by user A to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The message needs to be
> checked for
> > compliance to state/federal laws. (i.e. can't say guarantee
> > when talking
> > about investments) The compliance officer then needs to pass 
> > the message
> > along as if he never read it. It should look as if user A 
> > sent the message.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:09 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > Then use MS SMTP Server. Use something like CDONTS to create an 
> > email and send it that way. There is no excuse for a product to need
> > that kind of
> > access to an Exchange server.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Brett Wesoloski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:00 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > Depending on why your doing this/how.
> > 
> > If you are writing an application the user does some action to send 
> > this e-mail.  Which I hope is why your sending e-mails on behalf
> > of someone else.
> > Use the ShellExecute shell32.dll which will call the default 
> > e-mail program.
> > From there you can have it fill in all the necessary info.  
> > Subject, body,
> > attachment. 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:57 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > If this is for an application, I hope you've got very strong
> > management/legal support for what you're doing.  Your users 
> probably
> > won't like the idea of some automated process sending out emails 
> > impersonating them.
> > 
> > Serdar Soysal
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:48 AM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > If you are developing an Outlook application, then I have two pieces 
> > of advice for you.
> > 
> > 1.  Discard anything Tener says out of hand and
> > 2.  Go join the Outlook Developers list on slipstick.com
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Culebro, Enrique [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:38 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > Rich:
> > 
> > Thanks for your input, I'll try this with my Exchange Admins
> > 
> > Thanks again
> > 
> > Enrique
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:49 PM
> > To: Exchange Discussions
> > Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> > 
> > 
> > if it was

RE: I need to send emails as another ....

[Schwartz, Jim]

OK.
A Dr. wants to send medical records to the CDC or other informational
gathering body. The e-mail needs to be verified that it does not violate
HIPAA, Graham-Leach-Bliley, and or the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
– Part 11 with respect to FDA clinical trials. You pick.

-Original Message-
From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


Hey, man!  If it doesn't apply to *my* industry, then the solution shouldn't
exist for anyone...  

> -Original Message-
> From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:45 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> What about a workflow/compliance application? For example, a
> message is sent
> by user A to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The message needs to be checked for
> compliance to state/federal laws. (i.e. can't say guarantee 
> when talking
> about investments) The compliance officer then needs to pass 
> the message
> along as if he never read it. It should look as if user A 
> sent the message.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:09 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> Then use MS SMTP Server. Use something like CDONTS to create
> an email and
> send it that way. There is no excuse for a product to need 
> that kind of
> access to an Exchange server.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Wesoloski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:00 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> Depending on why your doing this/how.
> 
> If you are writing an application the user does some action
> to send this
> e-mail.  Which I hope is why your sending e-mails on behalf 
> of someone else.
> Use the ShellExecute shell32.dll which will call the default 
> e-mail program.
> From there you can have it fill in all the necessary info.  
> Subject, body,
> attachment. 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:57 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> If this is for an application, I hope you've got very strong 
> management/legal support for what you're doing.  Your users probably 
> won't like the idea of some automated process sending out emails
> impersonating
> them. 
> 
> Serdar Soysal
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> If you are developing an Outlook application, then I have two
> pieces of
> advice for you.
> 
> 1.  Discard anything Tener says out of hand and
> 2.  Go join the Outlook Developers list on slipstick.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Culebro, Enrique [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:38 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> Rich:
> 
> Thanks for your input, I'll try this with my Exchange Admins
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> Enrique
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:49 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> if it was me i would go to the exchange admin and open that
> users mailbox
> and then give myself permissions to send as.  Also you might 
> have to wait 45
> mins for it to take effect.
> 
> Rich
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Culebro, Enrique [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:43 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: I need to send emails as another 
> 
> 
> Hello everyone:
> 
> 
> I need to send emails as another (not on behalf of) from my
> personal Outlook
> account, is this possible?. Also, the other person should not 
> be accessible
> when users create an email.
> 
> Thanks for your help...
> 
> Enrique
> 
> _
> List posting FAQ:   http://www.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 to send emails as another ....

[Schwartz, Jim]

What about a workflow/compliance application? For example, a message is sent
by user A to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The message needs to be checked for
compliance to state/federal laws. (i.e. can't say guarantee when talking
about investments) The compliance officer then needs to pass the message
along as if he never read it. It should look as if user A sent the message.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 11:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


Then use MS SMTP Server. Use something like CDONTS to create an email and
send it that way. There is no excuse for a product to need that kind of
access to an Exchange server.

-Original Message-
From: Brett Wesoloski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 8:00 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


Depending on why your doing this/how.

If you are writing an application the user does some action to send this
e-mail.  Which I hope is why your sending e-mails on behalf of someone else.
Use the ShellExecute shell32.dll which will call the default e-mail program.
>From there you can have it fill in all the necessary info.  Subject, body,
attachment. 

-Original Message-
From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:57 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


If this is for an application, I hope you've got very strong
management/legal support for what you're doing.  Your users probably won't
like the idea of some automated process sending out emails impersonating
them. 

Serdar Soysal


-Original Message-
From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 10:48 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


If you are developing an Outlook application, then I have two pieces of
advice for you.

1.  Discard anything Tener says out of hand and
2.  Go join the Outlook Developers list on slipstick.com

-Original Message-
From: Culebro, Enrique [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:38 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


Rich:

Thanks for your input, I'll try this with my Exchange Admins

Thanks again

Enrique

-Original Message-
From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:49 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: I need to send emails as another 


if it was me i would go to the exchange admin and open that users mailbox
and then give myself permissions to send as.  Also you might have to wait 45
mins for it to take effect.

Rich

-Original Message-
From: Culebro, Enrique [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:43 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: I need to send emails as another 


Hello everyone:


I need to send emails as another (not on behalf of) from my personal Outlook
account, is this possible?. Also, the other person should not be accessible
when users create an email.

Thanks for your help...

Enrique

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: SMTP message size limits

[Schwartz, Jim]

The Olds still in the shop?

Jim, check the archives. This topic has been hammered to death. Short answer
is, have you management set the business requirement of how large they need
to get and design to that.

-Original Message-
From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:24 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: SMTP message size limits


I can't drive 55.


 Original message 
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:21:50 -0500
>From: "Moore, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: SMTP message size limits  
>To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I am being hammered by management on restricting SMTP
message limits to
>15MB. What limit are you using?
>
>Thanks,
> 
>Jim Moore
>Systems Engineer / DBA
>Saint Luke's Hospital
>Voice: 816.932.6990
>
>
_
>List posting FAQ:   
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
>Archives:   
http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy David

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.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: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.

[Schwartz, Jim]

Fax machines are still considered "Mission Critical" eh?

> -Original Message-
> From: Hunter, Lori [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:17 PM
> To:   Exchange Discussions
> Subject:  RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
> 
> I am here to tell you that there is no "e" in Citi.  Every frigging thing
> is
> on paper.  They won't even use Remedy - they use a fax machine!
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 12:24 PM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
> 
> 
> Since you work for a bank, Im betting that you guys still 
> type out memos.
> 
> 
>  Original message 
> >Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:16:30 -0400
> >From: "Schwartz, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
> >Subject: RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.  
> >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I'll use the same argument Doug used for the BCC question.
> >
> >How did you prevent someone from taking a typed memo and 
> making photocopies
> >of it?
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From:  Bibel, Laura Y. 
> [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent:  Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:08 PM
> >> To:Exchange Discussions
> >> Subject:   RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email 
> message.
> >> 
> >> Ok, let me try this again. If I send a message 
> marked private,
> >> when
> >> the recipient opens it, he CANNOT modify anything in the 
> message box. He
> >> CAN
> >> hit reply or forward, but he CANNOT modify my message and 
> he CANNOT copy
> >> any
> >> of my message while composing the reply. I was looking at 
> this only from a
> >> reply/forward perspective. I just realized that when the 
> recipient opens
> >> the
> >> original message, he CAN copy the contents elsewhere. I 
> think that's wierd
> >> though. It would be nice if you couldn't copy in either 
> read or compose
> >> mode. I apologize for my error (even though I was partly 
> right, I
> >> think!!!)
> >> I feel stupid enough so be nice, ok?
> >> 
> >>   
>   
> >> Laura Bibel
> >> Allegheny Energy: Information Services
> >> Voice (724) 830-5966 Fax (724) 853-3600
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11:55 PM
> >> To: Exchange Discussions
> >> Subject: Re: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Okay if you say so.
> >> 
> >> - Original Message -
> >> From: "Bibel, Laura Y." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:23 PM
> >> Subject: RE: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> > If the message composed in Outlook is marked private, 
> the contents can't
> >> be
> >> > copied/pasted.
> >> >
> >> > Laura Bibel
> >> > Allegheny Energy: Information Services
> >> > Voice (724) 830-5966 Fax (724) 853-3600
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Kevin Beron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> > Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:28 PM
> >> > To: Exchange Discussions
> >> > Subject: Prevent the forwarding of an email message.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Was wondering if there was a way to prevent someone 
> from forwarding the
> >> > email message or any content of the message. (ie 
> cutting and pasting to
> >> a
> >> > new message.
> >> >
> >> > We are using exchange 5.5 server and outlook 97, 98 and 
> 2000 clients.
> >> >
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> > Kevin Beron.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> _
> 
> >> List posting FAQ:   
> http://www.swinc.co