Exch2003 log oddness
Hi chaps, I have an elderly Exch2003 server here that has a chunk of logs that appear to not have been rolled in to the DB. When I say chunk it covers about 1.5 months and totals 7.5GB of data. Logs before this date were rolled fine, and logs after a date about two weeks ago have also been rolled in fine (that is, it's currently rolling logs after each backup). However, for about 6 weeks starting from middle of Jan through to end of Feb, the logs weren't rolled and are sat in the log folder. The event log doesn't show any exchange related issues at all. It seems inexplicable really. We aren't the only people with access to this box, so it could be that someone had made a change to the backups, but I can't find anyone who admits to doing anything. Is there a way to get these logs rolled in, or to see whether they have been rolled so that I can remove them? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Exch2003 log oddness
You could run eseutil /mh on the database immediately after a full backup to find out which logs would be needed in the event of having to perform a restore. In fact you wouldn't even need to wait to do a full backup. The database will need to be taken offline though. Richard -Original Message- From: bounce-8456805-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8456805-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Marshall Sent: 13 March 2009 09:48 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exch2003 log oddness Hi chaps, I have an elderly Exch2003 server here that has a chunk of logs that appear to not have been rolled in to the DB. When I say chunk it covers about 1.5 months and totals 7.5GB of data. Logs before this date were rolled fine, and logs after a date about two weeks ago have also been rolled in fine (that is, it's currently rolling logs after each backup). However, for about 6 weeks starting from middle of Jan through to end of Feb, the logs weren't rolled and are sat in the log folder. The event log doesn't show any exchange related issues at all. It seems inexplicable really. We aren't the only people with access to this box, so it could be that someone had made a change to the backups, but I can't find anyone who admits to doing anything. Is there a way to get these logs rolled in, or to see whether they have been rolled so that I can remove them? Olly ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
symantec smtp mail filter help
I'm hoping someone out there has done this already. I am currently using symantec's mail security for smtp. I have been using the ldap sync to let it dump mail to invalid recipients up front. Using version 5.0.1 on W2k3 server. The autofill settings for ldap synchronization DO NOT find secondary smtp addresses. I have an account created for marketing purposes that has SEVERAL secondary addresses setup and have to turn ldap lookup off in order for mail to those addresses to pass through. Symantec tech support tells me they don't support the cusomization of the ldap querry that would enable to filter to inlcude secondary smtp adresses, but someone familiar with ldap could modify to querry to do that. anyone able to help with that? here is what the current querry looks like: ((|(objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=person))((|(mail=*)(proxyAddresses=*))(sAMAccountName=*))) ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Public folder access in Exchange 2007 for webdav clients
We upgraded our Exchange environment from Exchange 2003 to 2007 SP1 running on Windows Server 2003 and got rid of the last Exchange 2003 server a while back. Now Entourage clients cannot see public folders. We have separate CAS and Mailbox servers. Going to https://casserver/public brings up a HTTP/1.1 503 Service Unavailable message. The public folder virtual directories on both the CAS and Mailbox servers are set to version Exchange 2003 or Exchange 2000 and are using the Backofficestorage URL which i'm guessing stopped working after the last 2003 server went away. My question is how do I upgrade these virtual directories to work against our Exchange 2007 public folder server. I found a couple of technet articles on public folder access in Exchage 2007 SP1 but nothing specific on what steps to take for upgrading the virtual directories after a migration from 2003 to 2007. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Removing PF Database from 2007
I'm having a hard time removing all the public folder replicas from a temp 2007 mailbox server that I am trying to uninstall. The following commands are supposed to remove all the PF's from the server: Get-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver \ -Recurse -ResultSize:Unlimited | Remove-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver -Recurse -ErrorAction:SilentlyContinue Get-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver \Non_Ipm_Subtree -Recurse -ResultSize:Unlimited | Remove-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver -Recurse -ErrorAction:SilentlyContinue Would this be safe to run to remove all replicas on a single server, or would it also delete the PF replicas from other servers? Thanks, mb ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: symantec smtp mail filter help
I can't help with your LDAP query, but I'm also a Symantec Mail Security for SMTP user. I decided not to use their LDAP sync feature after support told me it sends out an NDR for every e-mail sent to an invalid recipient. I didn't want to send that much backscatter out onto the Internet. Just something to think about. Richard Osborne Information Systems Jackson-Madison County General Hospital NOTICE: (1) The foregoing is not intended to be a legally binding or legally effective electronic signature. (2) This message may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please so notify me, disregard the foregoing message, and delete the message immediately. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: symantec smtp mail filter help I'm hoping someone out there has done this already. I am currently using symantec's mail security for smtp. I have been using the ldap sync to let it dump mail to invalid recipients up front. Using version 5.0.1 on W2k3 server. The autofill settings for ldap synchronization DO NOT find secondary smtp addresses. I have an account created for marketing purposes that has SEVERAL secondary addresses setup and have to turn ldap lookup off in order for mail to those addresses to pass through. Symantec tech support tells me they don't support the cusomization of the ldap querry that would enable to filter to inlcude secondary smtp adresses, but someone familiar with ldap could modify to querry to do that. anyone able to help with that? here is what the current querry looks like: ((|(objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=person))((|(mail=*)(proxyAddr esses=*))(sAMAccountName=*))) ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Removing PF Database from 2007
You can use the MoveAllReplicas.ps1 script first to make sure all replicas aren't on the source server. Then use the Get-PublicFolderStatistics cmdlet. If that shows folders, you can't remove the PF database. If there are folders that contain data, you need to look at why these aren't replicating and rehoming. If they are just system folders like OWAScratchPad, et al, you can proceed with a Get-PublicFolderStatistics | Remove-PublicFolder cmdlet. BUT! This will delete the public folders you still have left so make sure there are no folders with data in them that you actually want. From: Matthew Bullock [mailto:mbull...@root9.com] Sent: 13 March 2009 16:20 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Removing PF Database from 2007 I'm having a hard time removing all the public folder replicas from a temp 2007 mailbox server that I am trying to uninstall. The following commands are supposed to remove all the PF's from the server: Get-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver \ -Recurse -ResultSize:Unlimited | Remove-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver -Recurse -ErrorAction:SilentlyContinue Get-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver \Non_Ipm_Subtree -Recurse -ResultSize:Unlimited | Remove-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver -Recurse -ErrorAction:SilentlyContinue Would this be safe to run to remove all replicas on a single server, or would it also delete the PF replicas from other servers? Thanks, mb ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
SMTP Issue?
We have been having an issue with our exchange (ws2k3) server when restarting it... Every time the server restarts users will start to receive NDRs to emails that will be dated anywhere from a week to a month ago. In addition to the NDRs, some of our clients are receiving emails (again dated in the past) from our users. Below is an error message that one of our users received: Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject: Invoice from Aurico Reports, Inc. Sent: 2/23/2009 9:35 AM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: (email address) on 3/11/2009 5:09 AM You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator. AURICOEXCHANGE.reports.aurico.com #4.7.1 smtp;451 4.7.1 0 Is this an issue with email/NDR getting stuck in a queue and not being released until the SMTP service is restarted? What can we do to resolve this? _ Cameron Cooper IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified Aurico Reports, Ine Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896 ccoo...@aurico.com ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: symantec smtp mail filter help
Are you sure it doesn't do the check during SMTP and just return a 5xx invalid recipient to the still connected sending server? That is the point of these kinds of LDAP lookups generally. I HOPE the support guy misspoke.. From: Osborne, Richard [mailto:richard.osbo...@wth.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: symantec smtp mail filter help I can't help with your LDAP query, but I'm also a Symantec Mail Security for SMTP user. I decided not to use their LDAP sync feature after support told me it sends out an NDR for every e-mail sent to an invalid recipient. I didn't want to send that much backscatter out onto the Internet. Just something to think about. Richard Osborne Information Systems Jackson-Madison County General Hospital NOTICE: (1) The foregoing is not intended to be a legally binding or legally effective electronic signature. (2) This message may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please so notify me, disregard the foregoing message, and delete the message immediately. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: symantec smtp mail filter help I'm hoping someone out there has done this already. I am currently using symantec's mail security for smtp. I have been using the ldap sync to let it dump mail to invalid recipients up front. Using version 5.0.1 on W2k3 server. The autofill settings for ldap synchronization DO NOT find secondary smtp addresses. I have an account created for marketing purposes that has SEVERAL secondary addresses setup and have to turn ldap lookup off in order for mail to those addresses to pass through. Symantec tech support tells me they don't support the cusomization of the ldap querry that would enable to filter to inlcude secondary smtp adresses, but someone familiar with ldap could modify to querry to do that. anyone able to help with that? here is what the current querry looks like: ((|(objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=person))((|(mail=*)(proxyAddresses=*))(sAMAccountName=*))) ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: SMTP Issue?
Is this possibly the old temp table issue? http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/50422/have-you-checked-your-smtp-m ailbox-temporary-tables-lately.html From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] Sent: 13 March 2009 16:37 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: SMTP Issue? We have been having an issue with our exchange (ws2k3) server when restarting it. Every time the server restarts users will start to receive NDRs to emails that will be dated anywhere from a week to a month ago. In addition to the NDRs, some of our clients are receiving emails (again dated in the past) from our users. Below is an error message that one of our users received: Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject: Invoice from Aurico Reports, Inc. Sent: 2/23/2009 9:35 AM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: (email address) on 3/11/2009 5:09 AM You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator. AURICOEXCHANGE.reports.aurico.com #4.7.1 smtp;451 4.7.1 0 Is this an issue with email/NDR getting stuck in a queue and not being released until the SMTP service is restarted? What can we do to resolve this? _ Cameron Cooper IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified Aurico Reports, Ine Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896 ccoo...@aurico.com ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: SMTP Issue?
Or this one? http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael/archive/2007/11/16/exchang e-2003-sp2-and-greylisting.aspx Cheers, Phil -- Phil Randal | Networks Engineer Herefordshire Council | Deputy Chief Executive's Office | I.C.T. Services Division Thorn Office Centre, Rotherwas, Hereford, HR2 6JT Tel: 01432 260160 email: pran...@herefordshire.gov.uk Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it. From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 March 2009 16:41 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: SMTP Issue? Is this possibly the old temp table issue? http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/50422/have-you-checked-your-sm tp-mailbox-temporary-tables-lately.html From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] Sent: 13 March 2009 16:37 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: SMTP Issue? We have been having an issue with our exchange (ws2k3) server when restarting it... Every time the server restarts users will start to receive NDRs to emails that will be dated anywhere from a week to a month ago. In addition to the NDRs, some of our clients are receiving emails (again dated in the past) from our users. Below is an error message that one of our users received: Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject: Invoice from Aurico Reports, Inc. Sent: 2/23/2009 9:35 AM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: (email address) on 3/11/2009 5:09 AM You do not have permission to send to this recipient. For assistance, contact your system administrator. AURICOEXCHANGE.reports.aurico.com #4.7.1 smtp;451 4.7.1 0 Is this an issue with email/NDR getting stuck in a queue and not being released until the SMTP service is restarted? What can we do to resolve this? _ Cameron Cooper IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified Aurico Reports, Ine Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896 ccoo...@aurico.com ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: symantec smtp mail filter help
From the case log: -advised customer that invalid recipients would still send an NDR back to the sender. This is due to RFC requirements for accepting ownership of messages. Your way makes much more sense to me, but he seemed to know the product and that's what he said. I'm no SMTP expert, but it sounds like they are accepting the message before validating the recipient. From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: symantec smtp mail filter help Are you sure it doesn't do the check during SMTP and just return a 5xx invalid recipient to the still connected sending server? That is the point of these kinds of LDAP lookups generally. I HOPE the support guy misspoke.. From: Osborne, Richard [mailto:richard.osbo...@wth.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: symantec smtp mail filter help I can't help with your LDAP query, but I'm also a Symantec Mail Security for SMTP user. I decided not to use their LDAP sync feature after support told me it sends out an NDR for every e-mail sent to an invalid recipient. I didn't want to send that much backscatter out onto the Internet. Just something to think about. Richard Osborne Information Systems Jackson-Madison County General Hospital NOTICE: (1) The foregoing is not intended to be a legally binding or legally effective electronic signature. (2) This message may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please so notify me, disregard the foregoing message, and delete the message immediately. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: symantec smtp mail filter help I'm hoping someone out there has done this already. I am currently using symantec's mail security for smtp. I have been using the ldap sync to let it dump mail to invalid recipients up front. Using version 5.0.1 on W2k3 server. The autofill settings for ldap synchronization DO NOT find secondary smtp addresses. I have an account created for marketing purposes that has SEVERAL secondary addresses setup and have to turn ldap lookup off in order for mail to those addresses to pass through. Symantec tech support tells me they don't support the cusomization of the ldap querry that would enable to filter to inlcude secondary smtp adresses, but someone familiar with ldap could modify to querry to do that. anyone able to help with that? here is what the current querry looks like: ((|(objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=person))((|(mail=*)(proxyAddr esses=*))(sAMAccountName=*))) ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: SMTP Issue?
Thanks Neil and Phil... our exchange server didn't have the GlitchRetrySeconds reg entry. Added that and the hotfix to see if this resolves the issue. Again thanks for the help with this.. as I'm still a newbie with Exchange. _ Cameron Cooper IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified Aurico Reports, Ine Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896 ccoo...@aurico.com ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: symantec smtp mail filter help
Now that you quote that I remember seeing this about Symantec before and their silly RFC claim. You do not accept ownership of the message until you 250 OK at the end of the transaction. Sending 5xx after receipt to leaves ownership with the sending server, is fully RFC compliant and the best way to do it. I applaud you for not sending backscatter, very cool. From: Osborne, Richard [mailto:richard.osbo...@wth.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:50 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: symantec smtp mail filter help From the case log: -advised customer that invalid recipients would still send an NDR back to the sender. This is due to RFC requirements for accepting ownership of messages. Your way makes much more sense to me, but he seemed to know the product and that's what he said. I'm no SMTP expert, but it sounds like they are accepting the message before validating the recipient. From: Kennedy, Jim [mailto:kennedy...@elyriaschools.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: symantec smtp mail filter help Are you sure it doesn't do the check during SMTP and just return a 5xx invalid recipient to the still connected sending server? That is the point of these kinds of LDAP lookups generally. I HOPE the support guy misspoke.. From: Osborne, Richard [mailto:richard.osbo...@wth.org] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: symantec smtp mail filter help I can't help with your LDAP query, but I'm also a Symantec Mail Security for SMTP user. I decided not to use their LDAP sync feature after support told me it sends out an NDR for every e-mail sent to an invalid recipient. I didn't want to send that much backscatter out onto the Internet. Just something to think about. Richard Osborne Information Systems Jackson-Madison County General Hospital NOTICE: (1) The foregoing is not intended to be a legally binding or legally effective electronic signature. (2) This message may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please so notify me, disregard the foregoing message, and delete the message immediately. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. From: Jeff Brown [mailto:2jbr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 10:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: symantec smtp mail filter help I'm hoping someone out there has done this already. I am currently using symantec's mail security for smtp. I have been using the ldap sync to let it dump mail to invalid recipients up front. Using version 5.0.1 on W2k3 server. The autofill settings for ldap synchronization DO NOT find secondary smtp addresses. I have an account created for marketing purposes that has SEVERAL secondary addresses setup and have to turn ldap lookup off in order for mail to those addresses to pass through. Symantec tech support tells me they don't support the cusomization of the ldap querry that would enable to filter to inlcude secondary smtp adresses, but someone familiar with ldap could modify to querry to do that. anyone able to help with that? here is what the current querry looks like: ((|(objectCategory=group)(objectCategory=person))((|(mail=*)(proxyAddresses=*))(sAMAccountName=*))) ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Anti-SPAM Appliances
Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkVEIE1FU1NBR0UtLS0tLQ0KSGFzaDogU0hBMjU2DQoNCkkgaGF2 ZSBhIEMxNTAgYW5kIGhhdmVuJ3QgaGFkIG9uZSBmYWxzZSBOZWdhdGl2ZSBvciBQb3NpdGl2ZSBp biAzIHllYXJzLiBJdCdzIG11Y2ggbW9yZSB0aGVuIGp1c3QgYW4gQW50aS1TcGFtIEFwcGxpYW5j ZSwgeW91IGNhbiBkbyBsb3QncyBvZiBzdHVmZiBpbiB0aGUgZS1tYWlsIHN0cmVhbS4gDQoNCl9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCkZyb206IEJyaWFuIER1Z2Fz IFttYWlsdG86YnJpYW5Ac3VtbWl0LXRlY2huaWNhbC5jb21dIA0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBNYXJj aCAxMywgMjAwOSAyOjEwIFBNDQpUbzogTVMtRXhjaGFuZ2UgQWRtaW4gSXNzdWVzDQpTdWJqZWN0 OiBBbnRpLVNQQU0gQXBwbGlhbmNlcw0KDQpIZWxsbyBFdmVyeW9uZSAtIA0KoA0KRG9lcyBhbnlv bmUgb3V0IHRoZXJlIHVzZSB0aGUgSXJvbnBvcnQgYXBwbGlhbmNl/6AgSWYgc28sIHdoYXQgYXJl IHlvdXIgdGhvdWdodHMu//+gDQpUaGFua3MsDQpCcmlhbg0K//+gDQoNCi0tLS0tQkVHSU4gUEdQ IFNJR05BVFVSRS0tLS0tDQpWZXJzaW9uOiBQR1AgVW5pdmVyc2FsIDIuNi4zDQpDaGFyc2V0OiBp c28tODg1OS0xDQoNCndzQlZBd1VCU2JxeFVBV3dwYU5pMVNTd0FRakMzUWdBaHNxWU9SbGtiekNs YXhmMnM5R3hiNGpFUGo4WkhVeHoNClFCR3E5Wkw0UlMvWCtmd3B3blUzdmNSdVIyUnBqRUQxNzNs ZjRBUDM4bHhyK3lUN1NBWnVYWWtMNXlxdXIyOWkNCnh6VTFaY0dTMUU4ZHViV21hTWErNDlZdi9o ZXRPQXhDNzQrUXg1U2JKS25aVy91bVlVaDJESGUyOUVSVUdMSHoNCjNQbzZqakowa2prOUp6WGVs N3F0L0VTSUJVQ1pFRW5OTVlrWlVqbGQzc0VyL1FXUzI0SHJHRHVzeFd3K2E4ZU4NClcvNzl4V1lM ZDA2ZkI4M2xkRFEzUEZJQW1nV3FvSFVQQkFGYjlFcU5BeW1qcHkwb05McEZQdUt5YTdoNXFDV3IN CjBBNlFPejhpaFhzc2k5djVUOVpoZ0F6TmRGaDdLSHFSY0NtMDZGWTNUV0pXVTlPbnhVQk5Ldz09 DQo9eXZVaw0KLS0tLS1FTkQgUEdQIFNJR05BVFVSRS0tLS0tDQoNCn4gTmluamEgRW1haWwgU2Vj dXJpdHkgd2l0aCBDbG91ZG1hcmsgU3BhbSBFbmdpbmUgR2V0cyBJbWFnZSBTcGFtIH4NCn4gICAg ICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdW5iZWx0c29mdHdhcmUuY29tL05pbmphICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIH4
RE: Removing PF Database from 2007
Yeah, they're all system folders that are left. All are listed as isDeletePending: True but have been sitting over night. I wanted to try and remove them but wanted to make sure I wasn't going to be deleting something on another server. mb From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:37 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Removing PF Database from 2007 You can use the MoveAllReplicas.ps1 script first to make sure all replicas aren't on the source server. Then use the Get-PublicFolderStatistics cmdlet. If that shows folders, you can't remove the PF database. If there are folders that contain data, you need to look at why these aren't replicating and rehoming. If they are just system folders like OWAScratchPad, et al, you can proceed with a Get-PublicFolderStatistics | Remove-PublicFolder cmdlet. BUT! This will delete the public folders you still have left so make sure there are no folders with data in them that you actually want. From: Matthew Bullock [mailto:mbull...@root9.com] Sent: 13 March 2009 16:20 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Removing PF Database from 2007 I'm having a hard time removing all the public folder replicas from a temp 2007 mailbox server that I am trying to uninstall. The following commands are supposed to remove all the PF's from the server: Get-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver \ -Recurse -ResultSize:Unlimited | Remove-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver -Recurse -ErrorAction:SilentlyContinue Get-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver \Non_Ipm_Subtree -Recurse -ResultSize:Unlimited | Remove-PublicFolder -Server oldmbxserver -Recurse -ErrorAction:SilentlyContinue Would this be safe to run to remove all replicas on a single server, or would it also delete the PF replicas from other servers? Thanks, mb ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
I was looking at the IronPort myself. Any input is appreciated... -Original Message- From: Brian Dugas br...@summit-technical.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: 3/13/09 2:10 PM Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
I haven't had to do any tuning whatsoever on the appliance. A major criteria for detection is based on the reputation of the sender (via Secure Computing's Trusted Source), and it is very good at singling out bad guys. That isn't to say that it doesn't do any other evaluations (it actually does something like 20 IIRC), but reputation is a major factor. Clients are able to make their own whitelists for false positives, and there have been few instances where I had to whitelist something at the organizational level (generally needed if the return address is dynamic). Installation service is part of the deal (non-optional as I recall). It did not take him long to get it up and running, but there are a lot of options in there and I don't know that I would have felt comfortable trying to set it up without him there. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
I won't comment on GFI (I like SOME of their products). What I will say is that, while I generally like having things under my control, I find the appliance model to be the best one for dealing with spam (YMMV). It gives you a middle ground between an offsite service and having to maintain the software/hardware yourself. It is one less server that I have to worry about directly administering. It basically just works and if there is a problem, I just contact their support who deal with it. The only real problem is that if the box were to completely die, I don't have any direct ability to get a replacement up and running...but even that can be mitigated (you can cluster the appliances). From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances To me GFI is almost next to free, so it typically takes a bit more work. Their products seem to work fine, but just need a bit more hand holding. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ***Teletronics Technology Corporation*** This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this e-mail, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or use this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 267-352-2020 and destroy this message and any copies. Thank you. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Anti-SPAM Appliances
+1 for the barracuda We have 2 600's in a cluster, one in the US and one in the UK. Does what it says on the tin Matt - Original Message - From: Jake Gardner jgard...@ttcdas.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Fri Mar 13 20:41:10 2009 Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ***Teletronics Technology Corporation*** This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this e-mail, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or use this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 267-352-2020 and destroy this message and any copies. Thank you. *** _ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at h...@generalatlantic.com mailto:h...@generalatlantic.com. Thank You. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
Or, should the appliance die, your users will be that much more grateful when you get it back up and running. Yes, GFI at $400 per year for 100 users is pretty cheap, but its now the X hours per day we put in to tweak and tune that are costing us. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances I won't comment on GFI (I like SOME of their products). What I will say is that, while I generally like having things under my control, I find the appliance model to be the best one for dealing with spam (YMMV). It gives you a middle ground between an offsite service and having to maintain the software/hardware yourself. It is one less server that I have to worry about directly administering. It basically just works and if there is a problem, I just contact their support who deal with it. The only real problem is that if the box were to completely die, I don't have any direct ability to get a replacement up and running...but even that can be mitigated (you can cluster the appliances). From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances To me GFI is almost next to free, so it typically takes a bit more work. Their products seem to work fine, but just need a bit more hand holding. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
Does everything the Ironport does? Do you know if the Barracuda has the ability to strip off SS numbers from outgoing emails? From: Jake Gardner [mailto:jgard...@ttcdas.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ***Teletronics Technology Corporation*** This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this e-mail, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or use this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 267-352-2020 and destroy this message and any copies. Thank you. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
It's not an appliance, but I've had great success with Google's Email Filter service at two installations. It's very effective, accurate, inexpensive ($4/user/year), the users love it, and requires zero admin effort now that it's setup. I doubt there's a more cost effective paid solution available, and all the crap is filtered before it hits the internal circuit. Roger Wright Network Administrator Evatone, Inc. 727.572.7076 x388 _ From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances I won't comment on GFI (I like SOME of their products). What I will say is that, while I generally like having things under my control, I find the appliance model to be the best one for dealing with spam (YMMV). It gives you a middle ground between an offsite service and having to maintain the software/hardware yourself. It is one less server that I have to worry about directly administering. It basically just works and if there is a problem, I just contact their support who deal with it. The only real problem is that if the box were to completely die, I don't have any direct ability to get a replacement up and running...but even that can be mitigated (you can cluster the appliances). From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:33 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances To me GFI is almost next to free, so it typically takes a bit more work. Their products seem to work fine, but just need a bit more hand holding. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
I've got a couple of C350's and we're using the content filtering. I don't know if they have other products that will, but the C350 can identify mail with SS's in it, and give you to options ot bounce it back to the sender or quarantine it, but it can't strip them out. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Does everything the Ironport does? Do you know if the Barracuda has the ability to strip off SS numbers from outgoing emails? From: Jake Gardner [mailto:jgard...@ttcdas.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ***Teletronics Technology Corporation*** This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this e-mail, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or use this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 267-352-2020 and destroy this message and any copies. Thank you. *** ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
If you're seriously looking at detection and some kind of action based on positive, might have a look at proofpoint - they claim (don't have one myself) to be tops in HIPAA, PCI, PHI, PII etc. and have various platforms including server, virtual, appliance, hosted and permutations. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Does everything the Ironport does? Do you know if the Barracuda has the ability to strip off SS numbers from outgoing emails? From: Jake Gardner [mailto:jgard...@ttcdas.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ***Teletronics Technology Corporation*** This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this e-mail, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or use this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 267-352-2020 and destroy this message and any copies. Thank you. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
We evaluated the Barracuda at the same time as Ironmail. Barracuda very definitely does not do everything the Ironmail does. I can't specifically recall the bit about things like SS numbers, but I am thinking no on the Barracuda. As I recall, a key differentiator between something like a Barracuda and IronMail (and others in its price range) had to do with the company having a reputation system (where they actively track what sending IP addresses are up to). I am not knocking the Barracuda, because I have not used it, but our group definitely felt it was not on the same level as the IronMail--and that is reflected in the cost differential between the two. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Does everything the Ironport does? Do you know if the Barracuda has the ability to strip off SS numbers from outgoing emails? From: Jake Gardner [mailto:jgard...@ttcdas.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the IronMail eliminated them. Having spam sneak through is relatively (legit to spam ratio) rare these days. The installer was a real pro, and little administration is required. We haven't had many issues, but when they arise, their support has been very responsive. Bill From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Anti-SPAM Appliances Hello Everyone - Does anyone out there use the Ironport appliance? If so, what are your thoughts. Thanks, Brian ***Teletronics Technology Corporation*** This e-mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the addressee or authorized by the addressee to receive this e-mail, you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or use this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone at 267-352-2020 and destroy this message and any copies. Thank you. *** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
I will chime in with a big thumbs up vote for Ironport as well. We had to switch to them in a hurry at the end of last year and it's been great. We use the encryption piece as well, which has worked well. There is a built-in SSN trigger plus you can set up your own. We haven't tuned the anti-spam since the first day. We had installation support, about half a day, but our other site got theirs running by looking at our config and using the support site. Their support KB has answered many questions for me as well. Reputation filtering knocks off about 98% before the connection can even be completed. I don't know alot about how its price compares to others but we have been very happy with it so far. Mary Anthes Network Engineer SCL Health System Lenexa, KS 66219 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
Do you have the PostX/IEA appliances for encryption? From: Anthes, Mary [mailto:mary.ant...@sclhs.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:14 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances I will chime in with a big thumbs up vote for Ironport as well. We had to switch to them in a hurry at the end of last year and it's been great. We use the encryption piece as well, which has worked well. There is a built-in SSN trigger plus you can set up your own. We haven't tuned the anti-spam since the first day. We had installation support, about half a day, but our other site got theirs running by looking at our config and using the support site. Their support KB has answered many questions for me as well. Reputation filtering knocks off about 98% before the connection can even be completed. I don't know alot about how its price compares to others but we have been very happy with it so far. Mary Anthes Network Engineer SCL Health System Lenexa, KS 66219 ** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. ** ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server
My thoughts with a single mailbox server for 12k users would be port exhaustion ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc540453.aspx#TCPProtoConn) and MS's guidance that the maximum number of cores that can efficiently be used by the mailbox role is 8 and 32GB for memory. Throwing a 16 core/64GB will not efficiently scale, but carving that physical hardware into a few VMs would make efficient use of the beefy servers. -alex On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Brian Dwyer bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.auwrote: Apologies for not thinking before posting. Our organisation is in the process of moving everything to a Virtual environment. Exceptions will be made if necessary but must be justified. NetApps storage is being implemented with blade servers to host virrtual servers at the data centre, with a secnod NetApps storage and blades on-site. Data, VM images/snapshots etc will be replicated from the data centre and backed up here. All servers are currently located in a data centre - we have lost connectivity twice in the last 6 months (cut cables) Main Issue- All exisitng Exchange hardware is up for replacement. We need to- 1. implement an email archiving solution. 2 . upgrade to Exchange 2007 as our 2003 service is reaching capacity. Exchange 2003 services consists of - 2 x FE and 3 X BE mailbox servers with direct attached storage. 1.4 TB of mail in 14 databases. 12,000 users, in 133 locations. 70% use OWA only. Original design was for and E2K7 services on physical servers 2 x Client Access/Hub Transport Servers A single clusted mailbox server with CCR live node and databases in the data centre passive node and database replicas on-site Management would now like the designed reviews for virtualisation The physical servers allocated for the Clustered mailbox server are 32GB DL360 G5's with 4 x quad caore processors. These may be replaced with BL680c GS E7450 2P 8G Svr with 64GB ram and 6 x quad core processors. My preference is for - 2 x VIRTUAL CAS/HUB servers running on existing virtual hosts (1in data cente one on-site) WFS installed on CAS/Hub onsite server. 1 x Clustered Mailbox Serverwith CCR running on the physical BL680c's. Live node in the Data Centre Blade Shelf, Passive Node in the onsite Blade shelf. Live databases on tier 1 storage in the Data Centre Passive databases on tier 2 (or3) storage on site. My reasoning is - Exchange will be on a physical server. The high specs of the BL680c are required as the design has a single back-end server. Exchange 2007 and Server 2008 which will be running on the blade is fully 64-bit compliant and can make use of the RAM and processors much. Licencing costs will be reduced. CCR will provide automatic failover in event of a failure of data centre or nectwork connectivity. Cheers Brian -Original Message- From: Robinson, Chuck [mailto:chuck.robin...@emc.com] Sent: Friday, 13 March 2009 7:11 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server Virtualized Scenario : In a failover situation, you would be hosting all 12000 users on 2 virtual servers running on 1 physical host. If utilizing CCR, that would assume you are running the two CCR passive nodes on the remaining physical server as well. There is a lot more information to consider when sizing MBX servers, however my initial calculations says you are going to be over utilized. In a virtual environment, consider N+1 when planning capacity. Chuck Robinson ___ Solutions Architect MCSE: Messaging EMC Consulting Phone: 732-321-3644 | Mobile: 973-865-0394 chuck.robin...@emc.com www.emc.com/consulting Transforming Information Into Business Results -Original Message- From: Brian Dwyer [mailto:bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server 12000 mailboxes, 14 DB all around 100gb each currently running E2K3 2 x FE 3 xBE - 70% of clients connect via OWA NetApps storage tier1 allocated to Exchange Storage and Servers located in DataCentre - with second storage unit located on-site -opportunity to CCR passive node and DB's - have had 2 instances of loss of connectivity to data centre due to connection failure which results in loss of email. -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@theessentialexchange.com] Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 10:19 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server How many mailboxes? What's the storage backend? How big are the stores? What's the front-end look like? -Original Message- From: Brian Dwyer [mailto:bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:30 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Virtual vs Physical for E2K7 Mailbox Server I have 2 x HP BL680 G5 E7450 2P 8G Servers to use as either
RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances
-1 on the Barracuda. We were one of the original adopters so we have been through the progression with them. And until about a year ago I was a HUGE fan. But they have lost their way. They do many things well but the things they don't do right, some in outright violation of the RFC's have really soured me. We are replacing ours with an Ironport. There is no better appliance on the market today, imho. They do have reputation services both for blacklisting and whitelisting. The reputation system on sending mail servers is very good. Their reputation (Intent) scanning of message bodies is horrible, an amazing number of false positives. Thankfully you can turn that 'feature' off and it will still scan bodies with the Bays filter. Their Whitelisting reputation system is a joke. Senders PAY to be on it and you can not turn it off as of the latest firmware update. You can call support and they will do it for you but you have to re-call every firmware update. Their virus scanning is sub-standard. They use Clam-AV for that. Let me tell you about our recent experience with their AV. First some basics about how I had it set up. 1) Block on Virus, obviously. 2) Scan inside zips for virus's. 3) Block ALL exe's inside of zips. So one of my users got an e-card virus. It did not see it as a virus. But fair enough it was a new variant, that happens to the best of them. But remember I block all zip's containing exe's. The Cuda let it right through. Support danced around for a day about it but it was obvious what happened as it was right in the logs. Cuda has a hard coded 'message size' whitelisting on attachments and if an attachment is small enough it bypasses most of the scans. Total insanity, imho. And last they send the wrong response codes to sending servers during the SMTP connection phase. This causes even legit senders to retry messages for days and days that our blocked by our manual IP list. They did this when we first got it 5 years ago and I worked with them for a year to get the codes right. About a year and a half ago they redid the response codes and screwed them all up again and do not seem to care. From: Mayo, Bill [bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:03 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We evaluated the Barracuda at the same time as Ironmail. Barracuda very definitely does not do everything the Ironmail does. I can't specifically recall the bit about things like SS numbers, but I am thinking no on the Barracuda. As I recall, a key differentiator between something like a Barracuda and IronMail (and others in its price range) had to do with the company having a reputation system (where they actively track what sending IP addresses are up to). I am not knocking the Barracuda, because I have not used it, but our group definitely felt it was not on the same level as the IronMail--and that is reflected in the cost differential between the two. From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Does everything the Ironport does? Do you know if the Barracuda has the ability to strip off SS numbers from outgoing emails? From: Jake Gardner [mailto:jgard...@ttcdas.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:41 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We switched from GFI to Barracuda 300 appliance. Thanks, Jake Gardner TTC Network Administrator Ext. 246 From: Brian Dugas [mailto:br...@summit-technical.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We use GFI for SPAM control - work decent, but requires alot of tuning. Does Ironport require much in the way of tuning rules for SPAM? Do you really need an installer? From what I have read its almost plug-n-play. Thanks, Brian ___ Brian Dugas MIS Director Summit Technical Services, Inc. bdu...@summit-technical.com 401-736-8323 Ext.1011 www.summit-technical.com From: Theochares, George [mailto:gtheocha...@campbell-trial-lawyers.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances Yes, we started using Ironport this January after years of using Trend. No problems at all. Support is great and the users are very happy. The encrpytion feature has become very useful in the legal business. From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:bem...@pittcountync.gov] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 4:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Anti-SPAM Appliances We have an IronMail that we purchased a little over a year ago. We had major problems with spam at that time (our software solution wasn't cutting it), and the
