RE: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

[Martin Blackstone]

Oh, and how long do you need to keep them?

 

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:53 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

 

How big are these reports and what is the frequency?

 

From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:42 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

 

Is there a way to use Exchange to send emailed reports to a file folder
instead of an email account??

Or could I set up a rule to save to a file folder??

Mostly I don't want some of these reports bloating my Exchange server.

Exchange is 2k3 and we use Outlook 2k3 on a Windows2k3 Active Directory.

 

Thanks

David

 

 

 

 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

[Martin Blackstone]

How big are these reports and what is the frequency?

 

From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:42 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

 

Is there a way to use Exchange to send emailed reports to a file folder
instead of an email account??

Or could I set up a rule to save to a file folder??

Mostly I don't want some of these reports bloating my Exchange server.

Exchange is 2k3 and we use Outlook 2k3 on a Windows2k3 Active Directory.

 

Thanks

David

 

 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

[Sam Cayze]

Maybe a client side attachment stripper that integrates with outlook,
and only strips attachments from certain folders?
 
or an archiving product.



From: Brian Dwyer [mailto:bdw...@bne.catholic.edu.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder


You can send "emailed reports" to a mail enabled Exchange Public folder.
 
Brian
 
 



From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:42 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder


Is there a way to use Exchange to send emailed reports to a file folder
instead of an email account??
Or could I set up a rule to save to a file folder??
Mostly I don't want some of these reports bloating my Exchange server.
Exchange is 2k3 and we use Outlook 2k3 on a Windows2k3 Active Directory.
 
Thanks
David


 

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
the BCEC Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane
Catholic Education however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free
from computer viruses or other defects. Except for responsibilities
implied by law that cannot be excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its
employees and agents will not be responsible for any loss, damage or
consequence arising from this e-mail. 


 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

[Brian Dwyer]

You can send "emailed reports" to a mail enabled Exchange Public folder.
 
Brian
 
 



From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 24 March 2009 10:42 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: (Crosspost) Email directly to File folder


Is there a way to use Exchange to send emailed reports to a file folder
instead of an email account??
Or could I set up a rule to save to a file folder??
Mostly I don't want some of these reports bloating my Exchange server.
Exchange is 2k3 and we use Outlook 2k3 on a Windows2k3 Active Directory.
 
Thanks
David


 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the BCEC 
Security Gateway, and is believed to be clean. Brisbane Catholic Education 
however gives no warranties that this e-mail is free from computer viruses or 
other defects. Except for responsibilities implied by law that cannot be 
excluded, Brisbane Catholic Education, its employees and agents will not be 
responsible for any loss, damage or consequence arising from this e-mail. 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: +AFs-LIST ADMIN MESSAGE+AF0- RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[Jason Gurtz]

> Thank goodness I'm not alone.  I thought I was the only one who needed
at
> least three tries to get through a captcha "protected" registration
> system.

One of the nice things about recaptcha vs. the homegrown or proprietary
ones is the integrated "try-another" button in the case of a hard to
decipher image.  

Kinda weird, but recaptcha (which has subjectively easier to read
captchas) has been more secure then some of those ones which are highly
distorted and send one away banging the kb in frustration.  Maybe it's
because it uses two scanned in words instead of random chars?

~JasonG

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: +AFs-LIST ADMIN MESSAGE+AF0- RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[Jonathan Link]

Thank goodness I'm not alone.  I thought I was the only one who needed at
least three tries to get through a captcha "protected" registration system.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:58 AM, William Lefkovics
wrote:

> Bypassing captchas is also done with a minimum of effort - both with
> technology and cheap labour.
>
> They stop me, of course.  But they don't stop spammers that want to get to
> the other side of one.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Gurtz 
> +AFs-mailto:jasongurtz+AEA-npumail.com+AF0-
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 7:50 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: +AFs-LIST ADMIN MESSAGE+AF0- RE: Make sure you look better by
> losing weight
>
> +AD4- Next step is we're going to the people from Lyris and ask them what
> they
> +AD4- recommend +ACE-
>
>  Spammers signing up to email lists has come up recently elsewhere so
> looks like here is not the only place affected.
>
> You may want to point the Lyris people to +ADw-http://recaptcha.net/+AD4-for
> something they could easily and freely add to their web signup interface
> with a minimum of development effort.
>
> Email based signup requests will likely need to be moderated or
> confirmation mails point only to a captcha protected page or that feature
> turned off.  Or maybe Lyris will develop some kind of Turing test for the
> confirmation email.
>
> Cheers,
>
> +AH4-Jason
>
> +AH4- Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam +AH4-
> +AH4- http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja
>  +AH4-
>
>
>
> ~ 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: OST's & PST's

[Brown, Larry]

OK...am I going about this the wrong way?  My testing is giving me the same 
results.  I'm trying to keep users from adding new email to their PST's.

Using Group Policy Editor, I'm going to:
User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Microsoft Office Outlook 
2003\Miscellaneous\PST Settings
Large PST: Absolute Maximum Size, Enabled, set to 1MB.

I figure anyone using a PST will be over 1 MB.

But, this setting makes the mailbox unusable because it seems to apply to the 
OST file as well.  Disable the setting, run gpupdate /force and the mailbox 
works again.

Is there a different way of keeping users from adding to their PST's that I'm 
missing in my research???




From: Brown, Larry [mailto:larry.br...@dplinc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 1:44 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OST's & PST's

When I limited the size of the PST in my lab the mailbox stopped receiving 
email, but Exchange did not send a "Mailbox Full" email to the sender.  Trying 
to send an email gave the user a "Your Mailbox is Full" message.

Looks like I've done something wrong in my testing since the OST of others 
wasn't affected.


From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OST's & PST's

>> However, this also affects OST files.

Where did you read this?


From: Brown, Larry [mailto:larry.br...@dplinc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:14 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: OST's & PST's

Exchange 2007 CCR, Outlook 2003 (until later this year...I hope)

We are in the process of getting rid of PST's.

Phase one will be disabling the creation of New PST's, disabling Archiving AND 
not allowing email to be added to existing PST's.  Using Outlook11.adm in 
Policies I can gray out the ability to create new PST's, disable Archiving and 
I can set the maximum size for existing PST's to 1 Meg, which effectively keeps 
users from adding emails to their PST's.

However, this also affects OST files.  Since we are using Caching to allow 
users the ability to use Junk E-mail, this solution isn't acceptable.  (And 
yes, I don't like Caching...not my choice!)

Is there a way to lock down adding email to existing PST's without also locking 
down the OST files?  Have I missed something in my research?

 Larry C. Brown
LAN/WAN CS Support
 Dayton Power & Light
(937)-331-4922











~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

[Jeremy Phillips]

I would have to agree with Kevin on this. It's the item count that matters.

Thanks,

Jeremy Phillips


-Original Message-
From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

I would not do stubs.. If I was going to archive the archive would only be 
accessible via some other tool. Otherwise I still have Item count and with the 
current DB design that is not the best idea Performance wise.

Then, I tend to do things differently than most people, I like the simplest 
approach possible.

~Kevinm WLKMMAS
My life http://www.hedonists.ca


-Original Message-
From: Jason Benway [mailto:benw...@jsjcorp.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs?
How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size 
of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through 
outlook,OWA,smartphones?

Thanks,jb

-Original Message-
From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil..

~Kevinm WLKMMAS
My life http://www.hedonists.ca


-Original Message-
From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance

Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all 
based on this feedback?

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics  
wrote:
> I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the
> performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from
> February 2009.
>
>
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007
> SP2
> also)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
>
>
>
> You made me go and look, didn't you?  J  I remember Ross Smith talking
> about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure.
>
>
>
> I wasn't 100% correct.  Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items
> at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k.  Having said
> this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better.
>
>
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx
>
>
>
> From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org]
> Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
>
>
>
> Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to
> get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by
> Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has
> changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff.
> Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently?
>
>
>
> ~Kevinm WLKMMAS
>
> My life http://www.hedonists.ca
>
>
>
> From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
>
>
>
> It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox,
> Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views.  In Exchange
> 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these
> folders < 5,000.  In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to
> exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure
> correctly)
>
>
>
> From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com]
> Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
>
>
>
> Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but
> can you elaborate on "Control the items in their folders"?
>
> Thanks
> Shay
>
>
>
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
>
>
>
> I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a
> performance issue.
>
> The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can
> somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be 
> fine.
>
>
>
> From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance
>
>
>
> Hey,
>
>
>
> Just curious what type of performance people have had with large
> mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention
> policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people
> though that have special circumstances where they need to store email
> long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½
> years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our 
> u

RE: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Mak e sure you look better by losing weight

[Jason Gurtz]

> Bypassing captchas is also done with a minimum of effort - both with
> technology and cheap labour.

Yea, short of public key cryptography I doubt there's a perfect solution.
Yet, implementing a doorman and secret phrase is still better than no door
at all IMO.

~JasonG

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[Thomas Gonzalez]

Now that's an easy question

 

From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:01 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by
losing weight

 

I couldnt agree more.

--
ME2



2009/3/24 Mike French 

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkVEIE1FU1NBR0UtLS0tLQ0KSGFzaDogU0hBMjU2DQoNCkkg
ZmVl
bCBzb29vIGZh//+Api4NCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19f
Xw0KRnJvbTogUmVu/6kgZGUgSGFhcyBbbWFpbHRvOlJlbmUuZGVIYWFzQHdvb2R3YXJkLmNv
bV0g
DQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyNCwgMjAwOSA5OjMzIEFNDQpUbzogTVMtRXhjaGFu
Z2Ug
QWRtaW4gSXNzdWVzDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogW0xJU1QgQURNSU4gTUVTU0FHRV0gUkU6IE1h
a2Ug
c3VyZSB5b3UgbG9vayBiZXR0ZXIgYnkgbG9zaW5nIHdlaWdodA0KDQpIb3cgZG8gdGhleSBr
bm93
IEkgbmVlZCB0byBsb3NlIHdlaWdodCAD//+g//+Yug0K//+DqQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBT
dHUg
U2pvdXdlcm1hbiBbbWFpbHRvOnN0dXNAc3VuYmVsdC1zb2Z0d2FyZS5jb21dIA0KU2VudDog
TW9u
ZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyMywgMjAwOSAzOjQwIFBNDQpUbzogTVMtRXhjaGFuZ2UgQWRtaW4gSXNz
dWVz
DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbTElTVCBBRE1JTiBNRVNTQUdFXSBSRTogTWFrZSBzdXJlIHlvdSBsb29r
IGJl
dHRlciBieSBsb3Npbmcgd2VpZ2h0DQoNClJlc3VsdHM6IA0KVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBtZW1i
ZXJz
IHdlcmUgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IGRlbGV0ZWQ6DQoNCmVuY291bnRlcmRpQGhieWhncy5jb20N
Cm1v
cnBoZW1lZHZAa29uaXkuY29t///CoA0KV2FybSByZWdhcmRzLA0KDQoNClN0dSBTam91d2Vy
bWFu
DQpGb3VuZGVyLCBWUCBNYXJrZXRpbmcuDQpQOiArMS03MjctNTYyLTAxMDEgZXh0IDIxOA0K
Rjog
KzEtNzI3LTU2Mi01MTk5DQpzdHVzQHN1bmJlbHQtc29mdHdhcmUuY29tDQoNCg0K/6Ag///C
oA0K
DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpGcm9tOiBGbG9y
YSBS
dWNrZXIgW21haWx0bzptb3JwaGVtZWR2QGtvbml5LmNvbV0gDQpTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwg
TWFy
Y2ggMTksIDIwMDkgODoxNyBQTQ0KVG86IE1TLUV4Y2hhbmdlIEFkbWluIElzc3Vlcw0KU3Vi
amVj
dDogTWFrZSBzdXJlIHlvdSBsb29rIGJldHRlciBieSBsb3Npbmcgd2VpZ2h0///CoA0K/6AN
//+g
DQouDQoN//+gDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoq
KioN
ClRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbiB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBpcyBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kIGlu
dGVu
ZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgb3IgZW50aXR5IHRvIHdob20gaXQgaXMg
YWRk
cmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciBwbGVh
c2Ug
bm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYnkgcmV0dXJuIGUtbWFpbCBkZWxldGUgdGhpcyBlLW1haWwg
YW5k
IHJlZnJhaW4gZnJvbSBhbnkgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvciBhY3Rpb24gYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIGlu
Zm9y
bWF0aW9uLg0KKioqIA0K///CoA0KDQotLS0tLUJFR0lOIFBHUCBTSUdOQVRVUkUtLS0tLQ0K
VmVy
c2lvbjogUEdQIFVuaXZlcnNhbCAyLjYuMw0KQ2hhcnNldDogdXRmLTgNCg0Kd3NCVkF3VUJT
Y2ov
dUFXd3BhTmkxU1N3QVFocUhnZi9kN3F6em9VSXl5c00rWUxpRDcrc0FWdm9sZWo5UC9aZg0K
VjBO
cjFtcnV0cGFQODBQanBOMVQyakVPUVFOMjlJMzBZTzRSNXc2NUE0ZkZZYlp1T25Ma2t6NnpL
NjZj
Z0wvKw0Kc0tlZk1oSkl2VFVscTZ4WEFTSmVNS05LeENYZ1JwUUdjd21rRzRJc3pWYXp3QzhE
RHNN
U0c4ckF1UlR6SzJlaw0KM1NNU3pHa1NHNnVkUUxZZlQzNlhhRzhHZGkxSHVmMms2TjF0cGxm
OGha
d2syNVhsQm0wNk5qRnhlTjMxZnNtRw0KSkhsQ2lVOUZFYTBZTGtEd01jSTBWb3B2ZkVsN2lk
c0Rr
eCtVMEZpMmloWmVTdEpiTlNuVmQxdVJqS1Zpd1lqVQ0KOGVVdEk0SUQyTU5uOWkyRU82cDJM
NnZM
d3JaQ2loMzhwdjk4NXdZREE4cHZmTUwxbnAyNTZRPT0NCj04VDMxDQotLS0tLUVORCBQR1Ag
U0lH
TkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NCg0KfiBOaW5qYSBFbWFpbCBTZWN1cml0eSB3aXRoIENsb3VkbWFyayBT
cGFt
IEVuZ2luZSBHZXRzIEltYWdlIFNwYW0gfg0KfiAgICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN1
bmJl
bHRzb2Z0d2FyZS5jb20vTmluamEgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfg

 

 




This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this 
email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Girl Scouts of 
Southwest Texas company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make 
sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept 
responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or 
attachments.
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Autoarchive and oooops

[Sobey, Richard A]

Yes, if your Deleted Items Retention policy is set appropriately, you will be 
able to use Tools > Recover Deleted Items to get them back.

Richard

From: bounce-8465782-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
[mailto:bounce-8465782-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Oliver 
Marshall
Sent: 24 March 2009 14:50
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Autoarchive and ps

We have an end user who, believe it or not, auto archived their outlook email a 
few days back. Then this morning, they saw the archive.pst file, and deleted it 
using ctl or shift and delete, by-passing their deleted items. Amazing.

Is there any way to retrieve email cleared out by an autoarchive? Should it be 
stored in the recoverable deleted items window ?

Olly

--
G2 Support
Network Support : Online Backups : Server Management

www.g2support.com






~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

I couldnt agree more.

--
ME2


2009/3/24 Mike French 

>
> LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkVEIE1FU1NBR0UtLS0tLQ0KSGFzaDogU0hBMjU2DQoNCkkgZmVl
>
> bCBzb29vIGZh//+Api4NCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
>
> Xw0KRnJvbTogUmVu/6kgZGUgSGFhcyBbbWFpbHRvOlJlbmUuZGVIYWFzQHdvb2R3YXJkLmNvbV0g
>
> DQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyNCwgMjAwOSA5OjMzIEFNDQpUbzogTVMtRXhjaGFuZ2Ug
>
> QWRtaW4gSXNzdWVzDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogW0xJU1QgQURNSU4gTUVTU0FHRV0gUkU6IE1ha2Ug
>
> c3VyZSB5b3UgbG9vayBiZXR0ZXIgYnkgbG9zaW5nIHdlaWdodA0KDQpIb3cgZG8gdGhleSBrbm93
>
> IEkgbmVlZCB0byBsb3NlIHdlaWdodCAD//+g//+Yug0K//+DqQ0KDQpGcm9tOiBTdHUg
>
> U2pvdXdlcm1hbiBbbWFpbHRvOnN0dXNAc3VuYmVsdC1zb2Z0d2FyZS5jb21dIA0KU2VudDogTW9u
>
> ZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyMywgMjAwOSAzOjQwIFBNDQpUbzogTVMtRXhjaGFuZ2UgQWRtaW4gSXNzdWVz
>
> DQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbTElTVCBBRE1JTiBNRVNTQUdFXSBSRTogTWFrZSBzdXJlIHlvdSBsb29rIGJl
>
> dHRlciBieSBsb3Npbmcgd2VpZ2h0DQoNClJlc3VsdHM6IA0KVGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZyBtZW1iZXJz
>
> IHdlcmUgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IGRlbGV0ZWQ6DQoNCmVuY291bnRlcmRpQGhieWhncy5jb20NCm1v
>
> cnBoZW1lZHZAa29uaXkuY29t///CoA0KV2FybSByZWdhcmRzLA0KDQoNClN0dSBTam91d2VybWFu
>
> DQpGb3VuZGVyLCBWUCBNYXJrZXRpbmcuDQpQOiArMS03MjctNTYyLTAxMDEgZXh0IDIxOA0KRjog
>
> KzEtNzI3LTU2Mi01MTk5DQpzdHVzQHN1bmJlbHQtc29mdHdhcmUuY29tDQoNCg0K/6Ag///CoA0K
>
> DQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpGcm9tOiBGbG9yYSBS
>
> dWNrZXIgW21haWx0bzptb3JwaGVtZWR2QGtvbml5LmNvbV0gDQpTZW50OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgTWFy
>
> Y2ggMTksIDIwMDkgODoxNyBQTQ0KVG86IE1TLUV4Y2hhbmdlIEFkbWluIElzc3Vlcw0KU3ViamVj
>
> dDogTWFrZSBzdXJlIHlvdSBsb29rIGJldHRlciBieSBsb3Npbmcgd2VpZ2h0///CoA0K/6AN//+g
>
> DQouDQoN//+gDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQoqKioN
>
> ClRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBpbiB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBpcyBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5kIGludGVu
>
> ZGVkIHNvbGVseSBmb3IgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgb3IgZW50aXR5IHRvIHdob20gaXQgaXMgYWRk
>
> cmVzc2VkLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIGUtbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciBwbGVhc2Ug
>
> bm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYnkgcmV0dXJuIGUtbWFpbCBkZWxldGUgdGhpcyBlLW1haWwgYW5k
>
> IHJlZnJhaW4gZnJvbSBhbnkgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvciBhY3Rpb24gYmFzZWQgb24gdGhlIGluZm9y
>
> bWF0aW9uLg0KKioqIA0K///CoA0KDQotLS0tLUJFR0lOIFBHUCBTSUdOQVRVUkUtLS0tLQ0KVmVy
>
> c2lvbjogUEdQIFVuaXZlcnNhbCAyLjYuMw0KQ2hhcnNldDogdXRmLTgNCg0Kd3NCVkF3VUJTY2ov
>
> dUFXd3BhTmkxU1N3QVFocUhnZi9kN3F6em9VSXl5c00rWUxpRDcrc0FWdm9sZWo5UC9aZg0KVjBO
>
> cjFtcnV0cGFQODBQanBOMVQyakVPUVFOMjlJMzBZTzRSNXc2NUE0ZkZZYlp1T25Ma2t6NnpLNjZj
>
> Z0wvKw0Kc0tlZk1oSkl2VFVscTZ4WEFTSmVNS05LeENYZ1JwUUdjd21rRzRJc3pWYXp3QzhERHNN
>
> U0c4ckF1UlR6SzJlaw0KM1NNU3pHa1NHNnVkUUxZZlQzNlhhRzhHZGkxSHVmMms2TjF0cGxmOGha
>
> d2syNVhsQm0wNk5qRnhlTjMxZnNtRw0KSkhsQ2lVOUZFYTBZTGtEd01jSTBWb3B2ZkVsN2lkc0Rr
>
> eCtVMEZpMmloWmVTdEpiTlNuVmQxdVJqS1Zpd1lqVQ0KOGVVdEk0SUQyTU5uOWkyRU82cDJMNnZM
>
> d3JaQ2loMzhwdjk4NXdZREE4cHZmTUwxbnAyNTZRPT0NCj04VDMxDQotLS0tLUVORCBQR1AgU0lH
>
> TkFUVVJFLS0tLS0NCg0KfiBOaW5qYSBFbWFpbCBTZWN1cml0eSB3aXRoIENsb3VkbWFyayBTcGFt
>
> IEVuZ2luZSBHZXRzIEltYWdlIFNwYW0gfg0KfiAgICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LnN1bmJl
> bHRzb2Z0d2FyZS5jb20vTmluamEgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgfg
>

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: +AFs-LIST ADMIN MESSAGE+AF0- RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[William Lefkovics]

Bypassing captchas is also done with a minimum of effort - both with technology 
and cheap labour.

They stop me, of course.  But they don't stop spammers that want to get to the 
other side of one.
 

-Original Message-
From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:jasongu...@npumail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 7:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

> Next step is we're going to the people from Lyris and ask them what they
> recommend !

  Spammers signing up to email lists has come up recently elsewhere so
looks like here is not the only place affected.

You may want to point the Lyris people to  for
something they could easily and freely add to their web signup interface
with a minimum of development effort.

Email based signup requests will likely need to be moderated or
confirmation mails point only to a captcha protected page or that feature
turned off.  Or maybe Lyris will develop some kind of Turing test for the
confirmation email.

Cheers,

~Jason

~ 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: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[Mike French]
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Re: Lack of Microsoft RSS Feeds

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

Microsoft has lots of feeds.  They are here:

http://www.microsoft.com/rss/Default.aspx



--
ME2


On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Sam Cayze  wrote:

> Nice find, thanks.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:jasongu...@npumail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 1:01 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Lack of Microsoft RSS Feeds
>
> Feeds listed at http://kbalertz.com/allKbs.aspx might be a good
> alternative though it would be convenient to see some aggregate feeds
> just for security announcements.  With some creative filtering in a
> reader that might even be a real possibility. I don't know if that
> capability is out there in current readers.
>
> ~JasonG
>
> ~ 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~
>
>

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Mak e sure you look better by losing weight

[Jason Gurtz]

> Next step is we're going to the people from Lyris and ask them what they
> recommend !

  Spammers signing up to email lists has come up recently elsewhere so
looks like here is not the only place affected.

You may want to point the Lyris people to  for
something they could easily and freely add to their web signup interface
with a minimum of development effort.

Email based signup requests will likely need to be moderated or
confirmation mails point only to a captcha protected page or that feature
turned off.  Or maybe Lyris will develop some kind of Turing test for the
confirmation email.

Cheers,

~Jason

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Autoarchive and oooops

[Oliver Marshall]

We have an end user who, believe it or not, auto archived their outlook email a 
few days back. Then this morning, they saw the archive.pst file, and deleted it 
using ctl or shift and delete, by-passing their deleted items. Amazing.

Is there any way to retrieve email cleared out by an autoarchive? Should it be 
stored in the recoverable deleted items window ?

Olly

--
G2 Support
Network Support : Online Backups : Server Management

www.g2support.com



~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Problems with PST files on a Network Drive.

[Ben Scott]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Jackson, Jeff  wrote:
> I had this happen a while back, ended up rebooting the file server and the
> problem was resolved. Hasn’t happened since. Would love to know what was
> going on…

  Outlook's PST I/O patterns can apparently aggravate a long-standing
design flaw in Microsoft's SMB/CIFS server implementation.  The server
eventually exhausts a fixed resource (something in the kernel
non-paged pool, IIRC) and becomes unstable.  Some even report STOP
errors.  A reboot is the only way to clear the trouble, but it can
(will) surface again.

  The only real solution (currently) is to not store PST files on a
Microsoft file server.

  (As to why I call it a design flaw in the server: While I do agree
that any software design will have usage patterns which are
pathologically bad for it, they shouldn't cause the server to become
unstable, and then require a reboot to fix.)

-- Ben

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Problems with PST files on a Network Drive.

[Jackson, Jeff]

I had this happen a while back, ended up rebooting the file server and
the problem was resolved. Hasn't happened since. Would love to know what
was going on...

 

Jeff

 

From: Kevan Dickinson [mailto:kevan.dickin...@cmi-plc.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:55 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Problems with PST files on a Network Drive.

 

Hi

 

Since Friday afternoon I have been having some people report that they
can not open their PST files.

All PST files are stored in users home drives on the Network.  

When trying to open the file from within Outlook they are told that they
do not have permission to open the file. However they have full read and
write access to the file. I reapplied permissions just in case.  If I
copy the PST locally then the file can be opened. If I copy the file
back to the Network drive the error message changes to, "Outlook can not
open this file"

 

I know that Microsoft does not support PST's on a Network drive but we
have worked this way for many years and I know that lots of other people
do as well. 

 

Anyone any idea what may be happening here? It's affecting about 10% of
our users at the moment and as I said earlier started happening on
Friday afternoon.  The clients are running a mixture of Office 2003 and
Office 2007.  We use Exchange server 2003.

 

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.

 

Kevan Dickinson

Network Manager

NSF-CMI

23 Lodge Road

Hanborough Business Park, Long Hanborough,

Oxford, OX29 8SJ, UK

 

T:+44 01993 885661

E:kevan.dickin...@nsf-cmi.com

W:www.nsf-cmi.com

 

 




***Disclaimer***

The contents of this Email may be privileged and are confidential. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Should you wish to use Email as a mode of communication, NSF-CMi Ltd and
its subsidiaries are unable to guarantee the security of Email content
outside of our own computer systems.

This footnote also confirms that this Email message has been checked by
MailMarshal for the presence of computer viruses. Whilst we run
anti-virus software, you are solely responsible for ensuring that any
Email or attachment you receive is virus free. We disclaim any liability
for any damage you suffer as a consequence of receiving any virus.

NSF-CMi Ltd
Registered in England No: 1899857
Registered Office 4th Floor, 35 New Bridge Street, London, EC4V 6BW


**

 

 

 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

[René de Haas]

How do they know I need to lose weight ?J

Reÿé

 

From: Stu Sjouwerman [mailto:s...@sunbelt-software.com] 
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 3:40 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: [LIST ADMIN MESSAGE] RE: Make sure you look better by losing weight

 

Results: 

The following members were successfully deleted:

encounte...@hbyhgs.com
morphem...@koniy.com

 

Warm regards,


Stu Sjouwerman
Founder, VP Marketing.
P: +1-727-562-0101 ext 218
F: +1-727-562-5199
s...@sunbelt-software.com


  

 

 



From: Flora Rucker [mailto:morphem...@koniy.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:17 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Make sure you look better by losing weight

 

 

 

.

 

 



***
The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed.  If you have received this e-mail 
in error please notify the sender by return e-mail delete this e-mail and 
refrain from any disclosure or action based on the information.
***

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

(Crosspost) Email directly to File folder

[David W. McSpadden]

Is there a way to use Exchange to send emailed reports to a file folder instead 
of an email account??
Or could I set up a rule to save to a file folder??
Mostly I don't want some of these reports bloating my Exchange server.
Exchange is 2k3 and we use Outlook 2k3 on a Windows2k3 Active Directory.

Thanks
David
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

[Sobey, Richard A]

I was viewing an Inbox with around 15,000 items in it the other day (Exchange 
2007 mailbox). It wasn't uncomfortable by any means (compared to the equivalent 
experience on Exchange 2003) but I'd still hesitate to recommend anything above 
10,000. But you're right, it all depends on the server.

From: bounce-8464754-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com 
[mailto:bounce-8464754-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Neil 
Hobson
Sent: 23 March 2009 14:36
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, 
Calendar, etc, and also restricted views.  In Exchange 2003, the recommendation 
was to keep the number of items in these folders < 5,000.  In Exchange 2007, 
the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed 
your infrastructure correctly)

From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com]
Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you 
elaborate on "Control the items in their folders"?

Thanks
Shay

From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance

I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance 
issue.
The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow 
learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine.

From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance

Hey,

Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on 
Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges 
email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special 
circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an 
archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far 
less than desirable solution for our users.

We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not 
having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 
GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have 
you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or 
have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel 
and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about 
performance from large OSTs

Thanks

Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator
AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group
Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com




CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.  This electronic mail transmission may contain 
privileged and/or confidential

information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is 
addressed.   If you have

received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the 
sender, delete it  and destroy

it without reading it.  Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver 
of the attorney-client

or any other privilege.









CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE.  This electronic mail transmission may contain 
privileged and/or confidential

information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is 
addressed.   If you have

received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the 
sender, delete it  and destroy

it without reading it.  Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver 
of the attorney-client

or any other privilege.







~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Large Mailboxes Performance

[Chipshead]

I use Jatheon. I'm quite happy with it. It's been humming along now for 1.5 
years. Not as convenient as stubbing for the end user. 
- Original Message - 
From: "Ben Scott"  
To: "MS-Exchange Admin Issues"  
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:15:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance 

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, mqcarp  wrote: 
> Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive 
> option at all based on this feedback? 

  We don't currently use one.  We probably need one.  Budget and time 
constraints have meant that we don't have one yet. 

-- Ben 

~ 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~