RE: Odd Outlook Rule realted problem
Just ideas- Does the new CSR also have addresses from both domains? If so, which one is the primary? Could there be another rule that is affecting the move on the new CSR's e-mail address? -Bonnie From: Steve Hart [mailto:sh...@wrightbg.com] Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:26 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Odd Outlook Rule realted problem Here's a weird one for you. (Outlook 2003, Exchange 2007) I have at least two users with the same Outlook rule. They are both members of a group called Data Processing. The rule says to move all emails sent to Data Processing to the Data Processing folder. The rule has an exception that all emails that contain wrightimg (our domain) in the from address should not be moved. Therefor all emails to Data Processing from outside our company should be moved. The rules have worked fine for a long time. Now, we have a new CSR that is sending to Data Processing. Her email is a wrightimg address. Nonetheless, her messages are being moved, even though they are on the exception list. Potentially relevant things: This the first new CSR sending to Data Processing since we switched from wbgppm.com to wrightimg.com. Both addresses are assigned to the Data Processing group This is the first new CSR since we moved to Exchange 2007 from Exchange 2000, last year. Ideas? Steve
RE: E2k3 Security Question
ISA Server can certainly be configured to allow ActiveSync traffic in. As has been mentioned already, I think an ISA Server in the DMZ front-ending your Exchange Server is the most secure solution you can have for allowing webmail, et al in to your Exchange environment. -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 2:55 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: E2k3 Security Question Can you tell me more about the 'reverse proxy in front of OWA' and 'internet facing edge appliances'? Does they support ActiveSynch devices, or does they break them? I ask, because I have a couple of iPhone users who I can't deny at the moment - one is our new CEO - because I think to didn't turn off ActiveSynch on their accounts when I set them up, and now I have to live with it until I get a policy approved. However, if they increase security, and are approved, but break ActiveSynch, I won't cry. I want them to move to Blackberry's anyway. Kurt On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:45, Don Andrews don.andr...@safeway.com wrote: Our basic plan is, no direct internet connection to a server on the internal network. We use internet facing edge appliances in tier 1 DMZ then content filtering in tier 2, then Exchange on internal network. Reverse proxy in front of OWA (this is E2K3). I expect E2K7 to be similar. I realize this may not work for everyone but it is our model. - Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld - Original Message - From: Peter Johnson peter.john...@peterstow.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Sun Nov 08 11:12:04 2009 Subject: RE: E2k3 Security Question Microsoft's recommendation has always been to put the Front end server/CAS role directly into your network behind the firewall rather than in the DMZ. The reasoning behind this is related to how many holes you have to punch in the internal firewall to allow RPC access from the FE/CAS roles to the DCs. If you place the FE/CAS servers inside the internal network you only need to open one hole in your internal firewall namely 443. Of course MS recommend putting it behind an ISA server with FBA turned on. I've always run my Exchange Servers this way and have never had a security guy call me on it. Kind Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom:+44 1285 65842 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to create and send this e-mail. -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: 08 November 2009 19:42 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: E2k3 Security Question All, We've got a consultant in-house doing an infrastructure review. One of the things he's recommending for security reasons is that instead of doing SSL direct to our single Exchange servers on our production LANs, we should put front-end servers into our DMZ. I tend to believe that direct SSL (for OWA or RPC/HTTPS) is no less secure than a front-end in a DMZ, but I do confess ignorance, and would like to know more, and have
RE: E2k3 Security Question
HI Kurt Your instincts were correct. You definitely don't want your FE/CAS servers in the DMZ. Kind Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom:+44 1285 65842 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to create and send this e-mail. -Original Message- From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: 08 November 2009 23:29 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: E2k3 Security Question Yeah, that's a different thing than putting an FE in the DMZ. I'll ask him to reconsider his recommendation - we've had preliminary discussions regarding this, but the final report isn't ready to be presented to management. I can live with introducing ISA into our environment, preferably in the DMZ, but was really uncomfortable with the idea of an Exchange server in the DMZ. Kurt On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 10:12, Peter Johnson peter.john...@peterstow.com wrote: Microsoft's recommendation has always been to put the Front end server/CAS role directly into your network behind the firewall rather than in the DMZ. The reasoning behind this is related to how many holes you have to punch in the internal firewall to allow RPC access from the FE/CAS roles to the DCs. If you place the FE/CAS servers inside the internal network you only need to open one hole in your internal firewall namely 443. Of course MS recommend putting it behind an ISA server with FBA turned on. I've always run my Exchange Servers this way and have never had a security guy call me on it. Kind Regards Peter Johnson I.T Architect United Kingdom:+44 1285 65842 South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 Swaziland: +268 442 7000 Fax:+27 11 974 7130 Mobile: +2783 306 0019 peter.john...@peterstow.com This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to the company. Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, data or software or otherwise. The e-mail address of the sender may not be used,
OWA Connections
Exchange 2007. All- I'm looking to figure how I can determine how many OWA/MAPI connections I have to my Exchange 2007 server. Is there something within Exchange 2007 that can tell me this info? Or do I have to get a 3rd party product for this? Thank you, John Bowles
Looking for
I'm looking for a bright to ubber brilliant Exchange resource in the SEATTLE area. We are a support based company. We manage exchange for 100+ different companies. The opportunities to learn, grow, experience, and run into odd things are massive. Anyone interested Send me a resume off list. Kevinm | WLKMMAS | This message is Certified Swine Flu Free | http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/
Exchange 2010 RTM?
Hi all, I was just on our Volume License website and there are download links dated as yesterday/today for Exchange 2010 Standard and Enterprise... And I just noticed the Forefront Protection 2010 for Exchange dated as two weeks ago... I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? Troy Troy Barnhart, Sr. Systems Programmer tbarnh...@rcrh.org Regional Health, Inc. 353 Fairmont Boulevard Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 PH: 605-716-8352 / FAX: 605-716-8302
Re: Exchange 2010 RTM?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tbarnh...@rcrh.org wrote: I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+2010+rtm -- Ben
RE: Exchange 2010 RTM?
Doh! http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453096.aspx -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:02 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 RTM? On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tbarnh...@rcrh.org wrote: I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+2010+rtm -- Ben
Re: Exchange 2010 RTM?
Hi Troy, It was in the news. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453096.aspx And it comes shortly after they announced it was Code complete: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/10/08/452775.aspx Enjoy! Andrew http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,100121,39867169,00.htm 2009/11/9 Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tbarnh...@rcrh.org wrote: I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+2010+rtm -- Ben
Re: Exchange 2010 RTM?
It's the subject of the opening Keynote session here at Exchange/Win connections being discussed right now. I'm drinkin the koolaid! John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud From: Andrew Levicki To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Sent: Mon Nov 09 16:10:13 2009 Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 RTM? Hi Troy, It was in the news. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453096.aspx And it comes shortly after they announced it was Code complete: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/10/08/452775.aspx Enjoy! Andrew http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,100121,39867169,00.htm 2009/11/9 Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.commailto:mailvor...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tbarnh...@rcrh.orgmailto:tbarnh...@rcrh.org wrote: I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+2010+rtm -- Ben CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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 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.
Exchange 2007 cluster
I recently took over a network that's running an exchange and sql cluster. One of the boxes is 2003x64 and the other is 2008. The cluster seems to be working just fine. However, we have a 3rd server running BES 4.1 and the exchange mgmt. tools. Apparently the backup was using this server to get exchange backups. The problem is it hasn't run correctly in over a month. When I run the backup I can see both storage groups and all the databases are selected, however the backup ends successfully at about 55gb. The store is about 1.1 TB. I'm thinking of dropping the BEX11 mgmt agent on each cluster server to get a more precise backup. Just not sure what would be causing it to fall so short. Thanks
RE: Exchange 2010 RTM?
I'm there, but missed the opening keynote. From: John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 RTM? It's the subject of the opening Keynote session here at Exchange/Win connections being discussed right now. I'm drinkin the koolaid! John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud From: Andrew Levicki To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Sent: Mon Nov 09 16:10:13 2009 Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 RTM? Hi Troy, It was in the news. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453096.aspx And it comes shortly after they announced it was Code complete: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/10/08/452775.aspx Enjoy! Andrew http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,100121,39867169,00.htm 2009/11/9 Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.commailto:mailvor...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tbarnh...@rcrh.orgmailto:tbarnh...@rcrh.org wrote: I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+2010+rtm -- Ben CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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 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. ** 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. **
Re: Exchange 2010 RTM?
I'm sure it was recorded John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud From: Campbell, Rob To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Sent: Mon Nov 09 22:38:50 2009 Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 RTM? I'm there, but missed the opening keynote. From: John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 6:53 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 RTM? It's the subject of the opening Keynote session here at Exchange/Win connections being discussed right now. I'm drinkin the koolaid! John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud From: Andrew Levicki To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Sent: Mon Nov 09 16:10:13 2009 Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 RTM? Hi Troy, It was in the news. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453096.aspx And it comes shortly after they announced it was Code complete: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/10/08/452775.aspx Enjoy! Andrew http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,100121,39867169,00.htm 2009/11/9 Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.commailto:mailvor...@gmail.com On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM, tbarnh...@rcrh.orgmailto:tbarnh...@rcrh.org wrote: I thought we were still months out on these. Is this correct that this is the RTM? http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=exchange+2010+rtm -- Ben CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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 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. ** 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. ** CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
RE: Exchange 2007 cluster
Are you saying that you've inherited a 2 node A/P cluster with both Exchange (200x?) and SQL (200x?), and one node is 2003 x64 while the other is 2008 x86? Please, please tell me I read this wrong. Even if they're both 64 bit, let me guess. One Cluster group, right? From: Benjamin Zachary - Lists [mailto:li...@levelfive.us] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2007 cluster I recently took over a network that's running an exchange and sql cluster. One of the boxes is 2003x64 and the other is 2008. The cluster seems to be working just fine. However, we have a 3rd server running BES 4.1 and the exchange mgmt. tools. Apparently the backup was using this server to get exchange backups. The problem is it hasn't run correctly in over a month. When I run the backup I can see both storage groups and all the databases are selected, however the backup ends successfully at about 55gb. The store is about 1.1 TB. I'm thinking of dropping the BEX11 mgmt agent on each cluster server to get a more precise backup. Just not sure what would be causing it to fall so short. Thanks
RE: Exchange 2007 cluster
I haven't looked at it too much so far, Im just getting into it. I believe when the help desk tech (not the IT member) was flipping through the servers he said here is node1 and it was 2003x64 and then he got to node2 and it was a 2008x64. Im working my way from top down and backups was one of their big issues so it was near the top of my task list. From: Richard Stovall [mailto:richard.stov...@researchdata.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:51 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 cluster Are you saying that you've inherited a 2 node A/P cluster with both Exchange (200x?) and SQL (200x?), and one node is 2003 x64 while the other is 2008 x86? Please, please tell me I read this wrong. Even if they're both 64 bit, let me guess. One Cluster group, right? From: Benjamin Zachary - Lists [mailto:li...@levelfive.us] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:52 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2007 cluster I recently took over a network that's running an exchange and sql cluster. One of the boxes is 2003x64 and the other is 2008. The cluster seems to be working just fine. However, we have a 3rd server running BES 4.1 and the exchange mgmt. tools. Apparently the backup was using this server to get exchange backups. The problem is it hasn't run correctly in over a month. When I run the backup I can see both storage groups and all the databases are selected, however the backup ends successfully at about 55gb. The store is about 1.1 TB. I'm thinking of dropping the BEX11 mgmt agent on each cluster server to get a more precise backup. Just not sure what would be causing it to fall so short. Thanks
