R: Windows 7 64 bits and RAM

[HELP_PC]

It looks just DELL ,now, are selling with the minimum acceptable RAM ,but it is 
difficult to think how to make a 2 slots laptop being equipped with 16 GB
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] 
Inviato: mercoledì 28 ottobre 2009 16.19
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: RE: Windows 7 64 bits and RAM



My Dell Precision M4400 came with Quad Core and 8GB ram and shipped with Vista 
64bit.  I have installed Windows 7 64 on it.

 

From: HELP_PC [mailto:g...@enter.it] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:59 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Windows 7 64 bits and RAM

 

I wonder wether Brands likeHP,Dell,Acer will start to sell desktops and laptops 
with 64 bit edition and a consequent amount of RAM installed 

GuidoElia 
HELPPC 

 

 

 


 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Windows 7 Indexing

[Steve Ens]

So installed search 4 on the server...now it is indexing the shares and the
client can search from their stations.  Seems to be fine (from what I can
glean from him).

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:30 PM, James Hill wrote:

>  That would be good!  It’s one thing to read a Microsoft article saying it
> does it but another to actually see it working J
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Ens [mailto:stevey...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 28 October 2009 12:15 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>  *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 Indexing
>
>
>
> I've installed the windows search 4 on the SBS 2003 and I'll get the guy to
> kick it and then I'll let you know if it works.
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 3:54 AM, tony patton <
> tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com> wrote:
>
> Checked over the weekend, and there wasn't an option.
> Could've sworn there was.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Patton
> Desktop Operations Cavan
> Ext 8078
> Direct Dial 049 435 2878
> email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com
>
>   From:
>
> Steve Ens 
>
> To:
>
> "NT System Admin Issues" 
>
> Date:
>
> 23/10/2009 17:52
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: Windows 7 Indexing
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
>
> Yah, under properties, advanced there is an option to include the folder in
> an index search, but that doesn't give me any joy.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM, tony patton <
> tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com> wrote:
> There is an option somewhere, *i think it* indexes my network shares at
> home.
>
> still at the office so can't check it as we don't have w7 here yet.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Patton
> Desktop Operations Cavan
> Ext 8078
> Direct Dial 049 435 2878
> email: tony.pat...@quinn-insurance.com
>
> From:
>
> Steve Ens 
>
> To:
>
> "NT System Admin Issues" 
>
> Date:
>
> 23/10/2009 17:39
>
> Subject:
>
> Windows 7 Indexing
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
>
>
> Got some users running Windows 7...they love the built in indexing, but
> want to extend it to their network drives.  I haven't dug too much, but is
> there a local setting that allows them to do this?  Google search does it...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> http://www.quinn-insurance.com
>
> This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents
> should not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or
> opinions expressed are solely those of the sender and
> do not necessarily represent those of QUINN-Insurance, unless otherwise
> specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure,
> QUINN-Insurance is not responsible for the contents of this message nor
> responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the
> original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and
> outbound e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before
> opening any attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained
> as a result of any software viruses.
>
> 
>
> QUINN-Life Direct Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator.
> QUINN-Insurance Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator and
> regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK
> business.
>
> 
>
> QUINN-Life Direct Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number
> 292374 and is a private company limited by shares.
> QUINN-Insurance Limited is registered in Ireland, registration number
> 240768 and is a private company limited by shares.
> Both companies have their head office at Dublin Road, Cavan, Co. Cavan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> http://www.quinn-insurance.com
>
>
>
> This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above. The contents
>
> should not be copied nor disclosed to any other person. Any views or
>
> opinions expressed are solely those of the sender and
>
> do not necessarily represent those of QUINN-Insurance, unless otherwise
>
> specifically stated . As internet communications are not secure,
>
> QUINN-Insurance is not responsible for the contents of this message nor
>
> responsible for any change made to this message after it was sent by the
>
> original sender. Although virus scanning is used on all inbound and
>
> outbound e-mail, we advise you to carry out your own virus check before
>
> opening any attachment. We cannot accept liability for any damage sustained
>
> as a result of any software viruses.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> QUINN-Life Direct Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator.
>
> QUINN-Insurance Limited is regulated by the Financial Regulator and
>
> regulated by the Financial Services Authority for the conduct of UK
>
> business.
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> QUINN-Life Direct Limited is registered in Ireland, registra

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Ken Schaefer]

Hi,

ActiveSync works by sending requests directly to the configured ActiveSync web 
application. All the information about the user, and what command it wants to 
run etc. are contained within the querystring of the request. The The 
ActiveSync client doesn't have a way of negotiating past the FBA login screen, 
which might explain why it's failing.

Cheers
Ken


From: Eldridge, Dave [...@parkviewmc.com]
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2009 8:40 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

thanks

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Yes, I had to setup a second virtual directory, fba & ActiveSync don't like 
each other.  Check Daniel Petri's web site for the how to's on setting up a 
second vd.
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Eldridge, Dave 
mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com>> wrote:
No single server. I have fba enabled along with ssl. The article Richard 
mentioned talks about doing this second virtual directory.

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Yes we do and no we did not.  Are you using FE/BE setup ?

CFee
From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Yea that pertains to loading the cert into the phone’s root cert. We verified 
that.
It’s amazing how varied the responses are to this issue. :)

Do you have wm accessing  your exchange? If so did you create an additional 
virtual directory?

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee 
mailto:c...@massbar.org>> wrote:
If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs on the 
phone.

CFee
From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Looking for some guidance here.

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have to 
start supporting a bunch of these.
My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following error 
code 85010014

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server 2003 sp2.

Opened up mmc and certs.

Went to personal folder.
Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, 
export, no to export the private key
Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.
Give a file name and load onto phone
The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014 when 
trying to connect to exchange.
What am I missing here? This shouldn’t be this hard.

Any ideas?
Thanks

Can’t wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. :)


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Ben Scott]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:
 They're no guidance on how to plan a multi-function server.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Brian Desmond  wrote:
>>> All of the Exchange 2010 (and IIRC 2007) sizing docs
>>> talk explicitly about multi role Exchange servers...

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:
>>  Do they also cover how to run Domain Controller, Global Catalog, and
>> MSDE on the same box?  :)

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Michael B. Smith
 wrote:
> if you feel like ... your hardware can handle it ...

  Well, that's my question, really.  :)  All the capacity planning
guides for things assume the server is dedicated to the application.
There's guidance on how to size Exchange, and there's guidance for how
to size a DC, and guidance for how to size MS-SQL, but not much for
how the performance characteristics all interact on the same box.  Or,
as for what I'm looking at these days, how that'll act in VMs on the
same box.  The guides all talk about "for every X users", where X is
always greater 100 (sometimes much greater).  But like many other
businesses, we're not that big.  But performance is still a concern,
and so instead of "how many servers do I need per X users", it's a
question of how to allocate resources for the small pool of users I do
have.  I haven't found much guidance for this sort of scenario, from
Microsoft *or* VMware.  They all assume I've got need for several
servers and a SAN and want things like HA and hot migration.  I just
want to build the best server I can for my users.

  I'm actually working on a more detailed write-up on this, and plan
on floating it here for discussion some time in the next few days.
Hopefully.  :)

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Eldridge, Dave]

thanks

 

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Yes, I had to setup a second virtual directory, fba & ActiveSync don't
like each other.  Check Daniel Petri's web site for the how to's on
setting up a second vd.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Eldridge, Dave 
wrote:

No single server. I have fba enabled along with ssl. The article Richard
mentioned talks about doing this second virtual directory.

 

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org] 

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Yes we do and no we did not.  Are you using FE/BE setup ?

 

CFee

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Yea that pertains to loading the cert into the phone's root cert. We
verified that.

It's amazing how varied the responses are to this issue. J

 

Do you have wm accessing  your exchange? If so did you create an
additional virtual directory?

 

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee  wrote:

If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs
on the phone.

 

CFee

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.

 

 

 

 




-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Arthur C. Clarke
Sent from Newark, TX, United States 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.

 

 




-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Arthur C. Clarke

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Sherry Abercrombie]

Yes, I had to setup a second virtual directory, fba & ActiveSync don't like
each other.  Check Daniel Petri's web site for the how to's on setting up a
second vd.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Eldridge, Dave  wrote:

>  No single server. I have fba enabled along with ssl. The article Richard
> mentioned talks about doing this second virtual directory.
>
>
>
> *From:* Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone
>
>
>
> Yes we do and no we did not.  Are you using FE/BE setup ?
>
>
>
> *CFee*
>
> *From:* Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:47 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone
>
>
>
> Yea that pertains to loading the cert into the phone’s root cert. We
> verified that.
>
> It’s amazing how varied the responses are to this issue. J
>
>
>
> Do you have wm accessing  your exchange? If so did you create an additional
> virtual directory?
>
>
>
> *From:* Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:19 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone
>
>
>
> Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee  wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs on
> the phone.
>
>
>
> *CFee*
>
> *From:* Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone
>
>
>
> Looking for some guidance here.
>
>
>
> Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have to
> start supporting a bunch of these.
>
> My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
> error code 85010014
>
>
>
> I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server 2003
> sp2.
>
>
>
> Opened up mmc and certs.
>
>
>
> Went to personal folder.
>
> Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export the
> private key
>
> Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.
>
> Give a file name and load onto phone
>
> The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014 when
> trying to connect to exchange.
>
> What am I missing here? This shouldn’t be this hard.
>
>
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Can’t wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not
> represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.
>
> This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may
> be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in
> accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or
> any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication
> in error, please return to sender and delete the message from your computer
> system.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sherry Abercrombie
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
> Arthur C. Clarke
> Sent from Newark, TX, United States
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not
> represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.
>
> This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may
> be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in
> accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or
> any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication
> in error, please return to sender and delete the message from your computer
> system.{token}
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Anyone recommend good USB Stick duplicator on the cheap?

[Harry Singh]

+1

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:26 PM,  wrote:

> Free - use your computer.
> Cheap - use your computer, a USB hub or five, and a script or free
> duplicator software.
>
> Also, check cyberguys.com. They usualy have these kind of things for a
> reasonable price.
>
>
> --Matt Ross
> Ephrata School District
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:12 PM, "N Parr" wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Anyone recommend good USB Stick duplicator on the cheap?

[mross]

Free - use your computer.
Cheap - use your computer, a USB hub or five, and a script or free  
duplicator software.


Also, check cyberguys.com. They usualy have these kind of things for a  
reasonable price.



--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District

On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:12 PM, "N Parr" wrote:








~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Anyone recommend good USB Stick duplicator on the cheap?

[N Parr]

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Eldridge, Dave]

No single server. I have fba enabled along with ssl. The article Richard
mentioned talks about doing this second virtual directory.

 

From: Carol Fee [mailto:c...@massbar.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Yes we do and no we did not.  Are you using FE/BE setup ?

 

CFee

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Yea that pertains to loading the cert into the phone's root cert. We
verified that.

It's amazing how varied the responses are to this issue. J

 

Do you have wm accessing  your exchange? If so did you create an
additional virtual directory?

 

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee  wrote:

If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs
on the phone.

 

CFee

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.

 

 

 

 




-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Arthur C. Clarke
Sent from Newark, TX, United States 

 

 

 

 

 

 



This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately via e-mail 
if you have received this e-mail by mistake; then, delete this e-mail from your 
system.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Carol Fee]

Yes we do and no we did not.  Are you using FE/BE setup ?

CFee
From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:47 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Yea that pertains to loading the cert into the phone's root cert. We verified 
that.
It's amazing how varied the responses are to this issue. :)

Do you have wm accessing  your exchange? If so did you create an additional 
virtual directory?

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee 
mailto:c...@massbar.org>> wrote:
If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs on the 
phone.

CFee
From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Looking for some guidance here.

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have to 
start supporting a bunch of these.
My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following error 
code 85010014

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server 2003 sp2.

Opened up mmc and certs.

Went to personal folder.
Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, 
export, no to export the private key
Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.
Give a file name and load onto phone
The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014 when 
trying to connect to exchange.
What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

Any ideas?
Thanks

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. :)



This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not 
represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may be 
confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in 
accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or any of its 
contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please return to sender and delete the message from your computer system.











--
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
Sent from Newark, TX, United States









~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Eldridge, Dave]

Yea that pertains to loading the cert into the phone's root cert. We
verified that.

It's amazing how varied the responses are to this issue. J

 

Do you have wm accessing  your exchange? If so did you create an
additional virtual directory?

 

From: Sherry Abercrombie [mailto:saber...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee  wrote:

If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs
on the phone.

 

CFee

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.

 

 

 

 




-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." 
Arthur C. Clarke
Sent from Newark, TX, United States 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: SAN solutions

[N Parr]

+1



From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN solutions


Or add another EqualLogic to your storage pool...


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tim Vander Kooi 
wrote:


I have to say from personal experience that if you are going to
err, do it on the side of too much storage up front. I purchased a SAN
not too long ago thinking it would last for years, only to find it
filled to capacity in under 2 years. At this point, we also found out
that their solution to adding more space was to dump the original and
buy a "bigger better" system to replace it. I did in fact have to buy a
new system to replace the old SAN, but this time went with EqualLogic
which costs a little more up front, but gives me the peace of mind that
I can just add more disk to it for years and years to come. I am
willing, and able, to pay for that peace of mind as I find it to be
worth more than the actual hardware over time.

Tim

 

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:01 PM 

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN solutions



 

The problem being solved is not merely the replication of 150GB
of data.

The problem, as I understand it, it to provide a stand-alone,
but robust and redundant storage solution that can support current and
future growth, where current needs are ~150GB and future needs are
estimated at 3-5TB.   The replication will be across the WAN.

There are a number of ways to achieve this goal.  One of the
things we've been recommending is to not overstate the storage needs of
the next few years.   If growth is unpredictable, then spend more for a
highly expandable chassis now.  If growth is more modest (and I believe
that it will be, given the current needs), then get an appliance with
some growth ability, but at a better price point.   When you need to get
something else, the technology and pricing will be much better anyway.

Some people will roll their own solution, and some will obtain
the largest solution with expandability that money can by today.  And
there are viable options in between.


ASB (My XeeSM Profile)  

Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership





On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Gill <
lis...@canbyfoursquare.com> wrote:

I'm very small time, but I like to think that after a little
reading and pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around
enterprise concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot
more. But here I cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there
is a consideration to spend up to forty thousand dollars on replicating
150GB of data to two locations? This seems like such a completely small
amount of data for such a price, even with having space for growth.

 

-- 
Mike Gill

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: SAN solutions

 

Well, I'm looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage
appliance from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about
150 Gigs of drive space on the servers (again...mirrored for D/R
purposes.)

 

I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the
storage appliance to share the files out as if they were on the local
drive. My estimated budget for this is about $30-40K for a pair of
mirrored storage appliances. I would like to have one of the devices at
a remote location for D/R purposes. Pretty much everyone has said that
they think that can be done, even over a 5 Mbit VPN.

 

  

 

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: SAN solutions

 

What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be
constrained to?)

That might help your selection process.

You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and
the extent of your budget.If they are in sync, then that will be
better.  If not, then a recalibration in one direction or another will
be necessary, and then the solutions will come from that.

ASB (My XeeSM Profile)  


Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership

 

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich <
jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote:

Yeah... but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be
lower cost. J I got an MSRP on an

Re: SAN solutions

[Jonathan Link]

Or add another EqualLogic to your storage pool...

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tim Vander Kooi wrote:

>  I have to say from personal experience that if you are going to err, do
> it on the side of too much storage up front. I purchased a SAN not too long
> ago thinking it would last for years, only to find it filled to capacity in
> under 2 years. At this point, we also found out that their solution to
> adding more space was to dump the original and buy a “bigger better” system
> to replace it. I did in fact have to buy a new system to replace the old
> SAN, but this time went with EqualLogic which costs a little more up front,
> but gives me the peace of mind that I can just add more disk to it for years
> and years to come. I am willing, and able, to pay for that peace of mind as
> I find it to be worth more than the actual hardware over time.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:01 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> The problem being solved is *not *merely the replication of 150GB of data.
>
> The problem, as I understand it, it to provide a stand-alone, but robust
> and redundant storage solution that can support current and future growth,
> where current needs are ~150GB and future needs are estimated at 3-5TB.
> The replication will be across the WAN.
>
> There are a number of ways to achieve this goal.  One of the things we've
> been recommending is to not overstate the storage needs of the next few
> years.   If growth is unpredictable, then spend more for a highly expandable
> chassis now.  If growth is more modest (and I believe that it will be,
> given the current needs), then get an appliance with some growth ability,
> but at a better price point.   When you need to get something else, the
> technology and pricing will be much better anyway.
>
> Some people will roll their own solution, and some will obtain the largest
> solution with expandability that money can by today.  And there are viable
> options in between.
>
>
> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
>
> *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*
>
>
>
>  On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Gill 
> wrote:
>
> I’m very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and
> pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise
> concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I
> cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration
> to spend up to *forty thousand dollars* on replicating 150GB of data to
> two locations? This seems like such a completely small amount of data for
> such a price, even with having space for growth.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Gill
>
>
>
> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> Well, I’m looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance
> from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of
> drive space on the servers (again…mirrored for D/R purposes.)
>
>
>
> I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the storage appliance
> to share the files out as if they were on the local drive. My estimated
> budget for this is about $30-40K for a pair of mirrored storage appliances.
> I would like to have one of the devices at a remote location for D/R
> purposes. Pretty much everyone has said that they think that can be done,
> even over a 5 Mbit VPN.
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be constrained
> to?)
>
> That might help your selection process.
>
> You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and the extent of
> your budget.If they are in sync, then that will be better.  If not, then
> a recalibration in one direction or another will be necessary, and then the
> solutions will come from that.
>
> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
>
>
> *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich <
> jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah… but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be lower cost.
> J I got an MSRP on an Equallogic system… $42K for a 5 Tb useable system…
> No way I’m going to be able to afford two of those to do D/R. L
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> *Lefthand (Bought by HP) and Equalogic (bought by Dell) play in this space
> as well.

Re: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Sherry Abercrombie]

Try this link:  http://support.microsoft.com/kb/915840

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Carol Fee  wrote:

>  If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs
> on the phone.
>
>
>
> *CFee*
>
> *From:* Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone
>
>
>
> Looking for some guidance here.
>
>
>
> Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have to
> start supporting a bunch of these.
>
> My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
> error code 85010014
>
>
>
> I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server 2003
> sp2.
>
>
>
> Opened up mmc and certs.
>
>
>
> Went to personal folder.
>
> Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export the
> private key
>
> Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.
>
> Give a file name and load onto phone
>
> The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014 when
> trying to connect to exchange.
>
> What am I missing here? This shouldn’t be this hard.
>
>
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Can’t wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J
>
>
>
>
>
> This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not
> represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.
>
> This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may
> be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in
> accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or
> any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication
> in error, please return to sender and delete the message from your computer
> system.{token}
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
Sent from Newark, TX, United States

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Carol Fee]

If I remember correctly, the cert has to be installed in the Root certs on the 
phone.

CFee
From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

Looking for some guidance here.

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have to 
start supporting a bunch of these.
My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following error 
code 85010014

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server 2003 sp2.

Opened up mmc and certs.

Went to personal folder.
Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export the 
private key
Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.
Give a file name and load onto phone
The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014 when 
trying to connect to exchange.
What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

Any ideas?
Thanks

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. :)



This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does not 
represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above, may be 
confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as such in 
accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the intended recipient, 
you are hereby notified that any use of this communication, or any of its 
contents, is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please return to sender and delete the message from your computer system.{token}





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Bob Fronk]

What part are you referring to?  Upgrade or VM?  I have already ruled out 
upgrade.

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:49 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

ABsolutely positively do NOT do this. As Brian said, it isn't supported. I can 
also assure you that you would regret it. The upgrade can be painful.


From: Bob Fronk [...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:22 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
I was planning on rolling out Exchange 2007 in the next 60 days.  I have the 
hardware and need to complete the project.  Given that the RC is upgradable to 
RTM, would any of you go ahead and deploy the RC in production?  I don’t want 
to delay the project, plus I don’t want to do another migration from 2007 to 
2010.

Next question:  How many of you would install Exchange  as a VM on Hyper-V vs. 
Exchange stand alone.  I was considering running Exchange as a single VM on the 
hardware purchased to run it stand alone.  (Quad – Quad Core, 32GB Ram – 2TB 
iSCSI array)  This would be for DR purposes.



From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

You are incorrect.

It is 100K items per folder.


From: chipsh...@comcast.net [chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?
I believe that it is 100,000 items total per account not per folder.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:38:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Yes, well, lots of executives don't seem to understand how to click an "X" or 
hit the delete key. But Outlook 2007 with service pack 2 will (should) perform 
as well as Outlook 2010 RTM.

And replying to Andy Leedy's comment - yes, you can collocate CAS/HT on MB 
servers in HA situations using Exchange 2010; HOWEVER - that would also require 
you to have a redundant LB in front of that server for it to be HA.


From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Maybe?

Th���s an insane number of items in one folder.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

I believe you need Outlook 2010 to support up to 100,000 mailbox items where as 
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 5,000.
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Desmond" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Outlook 2007 (or 2003 or whatever) will work fine

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132


-Original Message-
From: Devin Meade [mailto:devin.me...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

We plan on moving from Exchange 2003 to 2010.  Possibly with two servers doing 
database replication.

Question: I am budgeting Exchange Server CALS and Exchange server itself on new 
hardware.  We currently have Outlook 2007 CALS, will those work with Exchange 
2010?  We don't plan on upgrading Outlook until probably 2011.

Thanks,
Devin

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Since SBS follows the version of Windows, you might wish for SBS 2008
> R2 to include E2010.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Partipilo 
> [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is going to be a SBS 2010 to include e2k10
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
>
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>
> Jupiter, Florida
>
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Rector 
> [mailto:sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> As my mailbox is the only one set up on our 2k7 setup, I'm definitely
> going to go to 2k10.
>
>
>
> Sean Rector, MCSE
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward 
> [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> Going to 2010 prolly here also, lots of good stuff in the new
> exchange...
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, S

Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Andrew S. Baker]

Good point, Ben.

The generic Microsoft docs and whitepapers assume "mid-sized" -- whatever
that means to anyone at any given moment.

They don't necessarily recognize the challenges faced by small companies,
nor do they adequately address the scale needed by large enterprises.  You
have to talk with the right people in Microsoft to get the answers that suit
your environment in those cases.  Microsoft Consulting Services is useful in
many of these scenarios, of course.

*ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
*Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, jesse-r...@wi.rr.com
>  wrote:
> > So, MS doesn't recommend a Simple Exchange Organization server solution
> > unless you're running SBS or EBS?  Serious?
>
>   Short answer: You'll be fine, just deploy the single server.
>
>  Longer answer:
>
>  There's a constant low-intensity struggle within Microsoft between
> the product and support engineers who want to say you *must* keep
> everything separate, and the SBS/EBS people who say "Hey, guys, the
> SMB segment is still a huge chunk of our business".  This struggle
> occasionally leaks out in the documentation, where the engineers say
> "never do this" and the SBS people tack on "unless you're on SBS".
> Not because SBS is imbued with magical server goodness; they just
> don't want anyone to be able to say that "SBS doesn't comply with
> Microsoft's own recommendations".
>
>  Practical upshot: What you're doing isn't Microsoft's recommendation
> for best practices, but is unlikely to be any real problem.  Perhaps a
> random little thing here or there won't work, but if you're a small
> shop you're prolly already used to that.  (Example: Exchange 2000 and
> Win 2000 RIS could not co-exist on the same server without the RIS SIS
> groveler puking all over itself.)
>
>  I find one of the harder parts about being a small shop is that all
> the capacity planning guides seem to assume you're dedicating servers
> to everything.  They're no guidance on how to plan a multi-function
> server.  I guess they just figure us small shops won't read the docs
> anyway... :-/
>
> -- Ben
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: SAN solutions

[Andrew S. Baker]

Tim,

I would argue that the problem was not the amount of storage that was
obtained, so much as it was determining how additional storage would be
added.

At my present employer, we needed to get some storage back in 2007.   They
wanted to keep the initial costs low, so I obtained a limited feature-set
appliance with 6TB usable space for under $10K. I advised them to go
with a more expandable unit, but no one wanted to make the investment at
that point.

We then needed more storage (for something else) and I obtained another unit
with the same caveat, but this time with 8TB usable space.  We paid just
over $10K for that one.Lastly, we obtained another non-expandable unit
with 12TB for a different function, and this came in around $20K, especially
because we were using larger density drives that had just been released.

Finally, in mid 2008, I convinced them to go with redundancy and
expandibility, and we purchased a robust 20TB solution (6TB SAS storage;
14TB SATA storage) with dual-redundant controllers, NAS support, and really
cool software for supporting snapshots and replication.  It can grow to over
200TB if needed, just by adding drive trays.  We would ultimately have paid
less for the total if we purchased the big SAN with 40TB of storage in the
first place, but I think they understand that now.

If you know what it takes to expand the storage (and we did in each case),
then you can take more gambles on how much growth to account for. Even
if you misjudge and end up with a device that can't grow with you, If you
can repurpose the old appliance, you will have lost very little, as the new
costs are much better for storage across the board.

*ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
*Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*



On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tim Vander Kooi wrote:

> I have to say from personal experience that if you are going to err, do it
> on the side of too much storage up front. I purchased a SAN not too long ago
> thinking it would last for years, only to find it filled to capacity in
> under 2 years. At this point, we also found out that their solution to
> adding more space was to dump the original and buy a “bigger better” system
> to replace it. I did in fact have to buy a new system to replace the old
> SAN, but this time went with EqualLogic which costs a little more up front,
> but gives me the peace of mind that I can just add more disk to it for years
> and years to come. I am willing, and able, to pay for that peace of mind as
> I find it to be worth more than the actual hardware over time.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:01 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> The problem being solved is *not *merely the replication of 150GB of data.
>
> The problem, as I understand it, it to provide a stand-alone, but robust
> and redundant storage solution that can support current and future growth,
> where current needs are ~150GB and future needs are estimated at 3-5TB.
> The replication will be across the WAN.
>
> There are a number of ways to achieve this goal.  One of the things we've
> been recommending is to not overstate the storage needs of the next few
> years.   If growth is unpredictable, then spend more for a highly expandable
> chassis now.  If growth is more modest (and I believe that it will be,
> given the current needs), then get an appliance with some growth ability,
> but at a better price point.   When you need to get something else, the
> technology and pricing will be much better anyway.
>
> Some people will roll their own solution, and some will obtain the largest
> solution with expandability that money can by today.  And there are viable
> options in between.
>
>
> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
>
> *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Gill 
> wrote:
>
> I’m very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and
> pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise
> concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I
> cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration
> to spend up to *forty thousand dollars* on replicating 150GB of data to
> two locations? This seems like such a completely small amount of data for
> such a price, even with having space for growth.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Gill
>
>
>
> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> Well, I’m looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance
> from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of
> drive space on the servers (again…mirrored for D/R purposes.)
>
>
>
> I am looking at using iSCSI t

RE: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Michael B. Smith]

if you feel like you know how to recover all of that, in the proper order using 
the proper procedures, from bare metal; and your backups are good enough for 
it; and your hardware can handle it - go for it.

if you are running SBS or EBS, the CSS/PSS people have specific training to get 
through this process with you.

if you aren't running SBS or EBS, then you'll probably get thrown around to 
several teams making it all work. just hope you don't do something in the wrong 
order and have to start over.

From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Brian Desmond  wrote:
> All of the Exchange 2010 (and IIRC 2007) sizing docs
> talk explicitly about multi role Exchange servers...

  Do they also cover how to run Domain Controller, Global Catalog, and
MSDE on the same box?  :)

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Michael B. Smith]

ABsolutely positively do NOT do this. As Brian said, it isn't supported. I can 
also assure you that you would regret it. The upgrade can be painful.


From: Bob Fronk [...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:22 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

I was planning on rolling out Exchange 2007 in the next 60 days.  I have the 
hardware and need to complete the project.  Given that the RC is upgradable to 
RTM, would any of you go ahead and deploy the RC in production?  I don’t want 
to delay the project, plus I don’t want to do another migration from 2007 to 
2010.

Next question:  How many of you would install Exchange  as a VM on Hyper-V vs. 
Exchange stand alone.  I was considering running Exchange as a single VM on the 
hardware purchased to run it stand alone.  (Quad – Quad Core, 32GB Ram – 2TB 
iSCSI array)  This would be for DR purposes.



From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

You are incorrect.

It is 100K items per folder.


From: chipsh...@comcast.net [chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?
I believe that it is 100,000 items total per account not per folder.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:38:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Yes, well, lots of executives don't seem to understand how to click an "X" or 
hit the delete key. But Outlook 2007 with service pack 2 will (should) perform 
as well as Outlook 2010 RTM.

And replying to Andy Leedy's comment - yes, you can collocate CAS/HT on MB 
servers in HA situations using Exchange 2010; HOWEVER - that would also require 
you to have a redundant LB in front of that server for it to be HA.


From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Maybe?

Th���s an insane number of items in one folder.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

I believe you need Outlook 2010 to support up to 100,000 mailbox items where as 
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 5,000.
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Desmond" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Outlook 2007 (or 2003 or whatever) will work fine

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132


-Original Message-
From: Devin Meade [mailto:devin.me...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

We plan on moving from Exchange 2003 to 2010.  Possibly with two servers doing 
database replication.

Question: I am budgeting Exchange Server CALS and Exchange server itself on new 
hardware.  We currently have Outlook 2007 CALS, will those work with Exchange 
2010?  We don't plan on upgrading Outlook until probably 2011.

Thanks,
Devin

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Since SBS follows the version of Windows, you might wish for SBS 2008
> R2 to include E2010.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Partipilo 
> [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is going to be a SBS 2010 to include e2k10
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
>
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>
> Jupiter, Florida
>
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Rector 
> [mailto:sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> As my mailbox is the only one set up on our 2k7 setup, I'm definitely
> going to go to 2k10.
>
>
>
> Sean Rector, MCSE
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward 
> [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> Going to 2010 prolly here also, lots of good stuff in the new
> exchange...
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, Security +, Network +
>
> ezi...@lifespan.org
>
> Phone:401-639-3505
>
> 
>
> From: Leedy, Andy 
> [mailto:ale...@butlerahs.com]
> Sent: Friday, O

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Michael B. Smith]

Actually, the original ANSI PST format only supports 16K items per folder.

"Large folder" support was a feature of the personal store added with Outlook 
2000, that bumped the ANSI limit to 64K.

Unicode PSTs, as far as I know, are good up to 2^31-1 items. However, the 
support boundary is beneath that.

From: Ben Scott [mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Brian Desmond  wrote:
>> Good to know. Thanks. On Ex 2003 is it also 5000 limit per folder?
>
> AFAIK there is no hard limit, it’s just a strong recommendation for
> performance reasons.

  PST/OST used to explode if it had more than 65535 items in a single
folder.  I dunno if that's still the case with the Outlook "Unicode
format", but if it is, that would be a hard limit unless you can run
in online mode all the time.  (No offline or cached mode.)

  (Yes, I know that OUTLOOK.EXE is a different file from STORE.EXE.
Outlook is still the native Exchange client, no matter what
Microsoft's marketing department says.)

  (Yes, I also think that putting 64K items in a single folder should
qualify as criminal insanity.  :)  )

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Ben Scott]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Brian Desmond  wrote:
> All of the Exchange 2010 (and IIRC 2007) sizing docs
> talk explicitly about multi role Exchange servers...

  Do they also cover how to run Domain Controller, Global Catalog, and
MSDE on the same box?  :)

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Dell vendor rant!

[Ben Scott]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Sherry Abercrombie  wrote:
> ... at least my understanding of HIPAA would make me question it ...

  HIPAA don't even get close to that level of detail.

  HIPAA, Sarb-Ox, etc., are used as a boogey-man by auditors and
security guys the world over.  If you take the time to read the letter
of the law they're almost always just using it as an excuse to get
their way.  Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

  Example: I've seen someone claim Sarb-Ox meant they had to mandate
password changes every 30 days.  I checked.  The actual Sarb-Ox
regulations don't even *mention* passwords.

  I wonder when they'll start saying TRACERT.EXE is a "hacker tool".
It's already not uncommon to find ICMP blocked by people as a
"security risk" -- and then they wonder why they have random packet
loss problems.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Ransomware

[Andrew Levicki]

Haha, great comment:
Use the same rule as in political reportingIn political reporting of
something bad, if you don't see party affiliation, you know it's a Democrat.
In computer reporting of something bad, if you don't see an operating
system, you know it's Windows.
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12691-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=70944&messageID=1365650&tag=content;col1
PS: I'm a PC and have no political affiliations, just made me smile.

2009/10/28 James Kerr 

>  yeah man, ransomwares have been around for some time now.
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Roger Wright 
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:05 PM
> *Subject:* Ransomware
>
> Spyware, Malware, Scareware, etc  now we have Ransomware.
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=4748
>
>
> Roger Wright
> ___
>
> Sent from Tampa, FL, United States
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Brian Desmond]

All of the Exchange 2010 (and IIRC 2007) sizing docs talk explicitly about 
multi role Exchange servers...

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:29 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, jesse-r...@wi.rr.com  
wrote:
> So, MS doesn't recommend a Simple Exchange Organization server
> solution unless you're running SBS or EBS?  Serious?

  Short answer: You'll be fine, just deploy the single server.

  Longer answer:

  There's a constant low-intensity struggle within Microsoft between the 
product and support engineers who want to say you *must* keep everything 
separate, and the SBS/EBS people who say "Hey, guys, the SMB segment is still a 
huge chunk of our business".  This struggle occasionally leaks out in the 
documentation, where the engineers say "never do this" and the SBS people tack 
on "unless you're on SBS".
Not because SBS is imbued with magical server goodness; they just don't want 
anyone to be able to say that "SBS doesn't comply with Microsoft's own 
recommendations".

  Practical upshot: What you're doing isn't Microsoft's recommendation for best 
practices, but is unlikely to be any real problem.  Perhaps a random little 
thing here or there won't work, but if you're a small shop you're prolly 
already used to that.  (Example: Exchange 2000 and Win 2000 RIS could not 
co-exist on the same server without the RIS SIS groveler puking all over 
itself.)

  I find one of the harder parts about being a small shop is that all the 
capacity planning guides seem to assume you're dedicating servers to 
everything.  They're no guidance on how to plan a multi-function server.  I 
guess they just figure us small shops won't read the docs anyway... :-/

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Richard Stovall]

Also have a look at http://www.amset.info/exchange/mobile-85010014.asp.

 

 

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.{token}

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Ben Scott]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:45 PM, jesse-r...@wi.rr.com
 wrote:
> So, MS doesn't recommend a Simple Exchange Organization server solution
> unless you're running SBS or EBS?  Serious?

  Short answer: You'll be fine, just deploy the single server.

  Longer answer:

  There's a constant low-intensity struggle within Microsoft between
the product and support engineers who want to say you *must* keep
everything separate, and the SBS/EBS people who say "Hey, guys, the
SMB segment is still a huge chunk of our business".  This struggle
occasionally leaks out in the documentation, where the engineers say
"never do this" and the SBS people tack on "unless you're on SBS".
Not because SBS is imbued with magical server goodness; they just
don't want anyone to be able to say that "SBS doesn't comply with
Microsoft's own recommendations".

  Practical upshot: What you're doing isn't Microsoft's recommendation
for best practices, but is unlikely to be any real problem.  Perhaps a
random little thing here or there won't work, but if you're a small
shop you're prolly already used to that.  (Example: Exchange 2000 and
Win 2000 RIS could not co-exist on the same server without the RIS SIS
groveler puking all over itself.)

  I find one of the harder parts about being a small shop is that all
the capacity planning guides seem to assume you're dedicating servers
to everything.  They're no guidance on how to plan a multi-function
server.  I guess they just figure us small shops won't read the docs
anyway... :-/

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Erik Goldoff]

 
NONDISCLOSURE indicates a clandestine effort, and is the critical word in my
post ... There may well be a business case for it, but if anyone wants to
put packet capture software on my network for a business use, they damn well
better tell me about it before hand.

It's not just the WHAT Ben, it's the HOW and the WHY that bother me about
this.

I use network sniffers/packet captures on a regular basis to troubleshoot.
But I NEVER put one in place without letting the owner know.




Erik Goldoff
IT  Consultant
Systems, Networks, & Security 


-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Erik Goldoff  wrote:
>> "Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
installed."
>
> From a security standpoint, nondisclosure of that software being 
> preinstalled by the vendor is an extreme violation of trust and tantamount
...

  You're accepting a computer with software pre-installed by someone else,
most of which you cannot view the code to, and you're okay with that.  But
they load a sniffer and you're calling the FBI?

  As a guy who frequently has to wear a "network admin" hat, I wouldn't want
to try and diagnose a network trouble without a sniffer, any more than I
would want to not be able to use ping or traceroute.

  FYI, a network sniffer (tcpdump) is a standard tool with many *nix
systems.

  But then again, there are people who call abuse desks when someone pings
them.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: mass mailer software

[James Kerr]

+1 for Constant Contact
  - Original Message - 
  From: Micheal Espinola Jr 
  To: NT System Admin Issues 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:12 PM
  Subject: Re: mass mailer software


  +1

  Keep it professional.  Keep it off of your own servers.

  --
  ME2



  On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

We use Constant Contact for all mass email.

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com


-Original Message-
From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: Re: mass mailer software

Pay a 3rd party professional vendor.

What are you trying to accomplish?  This is important because there
are a number of different ways to do it that can annoy people less.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:
> Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?
>
> Joseph L. Heaton
> Windows Server Support Group
> Information Technology Branch
> Department of Fish and Game
> 1807 13th Street, Suite 201
> Sacramento, CA  95811
> Desk: (916) 323-1284
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~







 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Dell vendor rant!

[Sherry Abercrombie]

Considering that David is in the health care field, it's not entirely a bad
idea to be reacting that way, at least my understanding of HIPAA would make
me question it, and yes report it if I deemed it to be a deliberate act.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Erik Goldoff  wrote:
> >> "Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
> installed."
> >
> > From a security standpoint, nondisclosure of that software being
> > preinstalled by the vendor is an extreme violation of trust and
> tantamount ...
>
>  You're accepting a computer with software pre-installed by someone
> else, most of which you cannot view the code to, and you're okay with
> that.  But they load a sniffer and you're calling the FBI?
>
>  As a guy who frequently has to wear a "network admin" hat, I
> wouldn't want to try and diagnose a network trouble without a sniffer,
> any more than I would want to not be able to use ping or traceroute.
>
>  FYI, a network sniffer (tcpdump) is a standard tool with many *nix
> systems.
>
>  But then again, there are people who call abuse desks when someone pings
> them.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>



-- 
Sherry Abercrombie

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
Sent from Newark, TX, United States

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Ben Scott]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Brian Desmond  wrote:
>> Good to know. Thanks. On Ex 2003 is it also 5000 limit per folder?
>
> AFAIK there is no hard limit, it’s just a strong recommendation for
> performance reasons.

  PST/OST used to explode if it had more than 65535 items in a single
folder.  I dunno if that's still the case with the Outlook "Unicode
format", but if it is, that would be a hard limit unless you can run
in online mode all the time.  (No offline or cached mode.)

  (Yes, I know that OUTLOOK.EXE is a different file from STORE.EXE.
Outlook is still the native Exchange client, no matter what
Microsoft's marketing department says.)

  (Yes, I also think that putting 64K items in a single folder should
qualify as criminal insanity.  :)  )

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: SAN solutions

[Tim Vander Kooi]

I have to say from personal experience that if you are going to err, do it on 
the side of too much storage up front. I purchased a SAN not too long ago 
thinking it would last for years, only to find it filled to capacity in under 2 
years. At this point, we also found out that their solution to adding more 
space was to dump the original and buy a "bigger better" system to replace it. 
I did in fact have to buy a new system to replace the old SAN, but this time 
went with EqualLogic which costs a little more up front, but gives me the peace 
of mind that I can just add more disk to it for years and years to come. I am 
willing, and able, to pay for that peace of mind as I find it to be worth more 
than the actual hardware over time.
Tim

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN solutions

The problem being solved is not merely the replication of 150GB of data.

The problem, as I understand it, it to provide a stand-alone, but robust and 
redundant storage solution that can support current and future growth, where 
current needs are ~150GB and future needs are estimated at 3-5TB.   The 
replication will be across the WAN.

There are a number of ways to achieve this goal.  One of the things we've been 
recommending is to not overstate the storage needs of the next few years.   If 
growth is unpredictable, then spend more for a highly expandable chassis now.  
If growth is more modest (and I believe that it will be, given the current 
needs), then get an appliance with some growth ability, but at a better price 
point.   When you need to get something else, the technology and pricing will 
be much better anyway.

Some people will roll their own solution, and some will obtain the largest 
solution with expandability that money can by today.  And there are viable 
options in between.


ASB (My XeeSM Profile)

Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Gill 
mailto:lis...@canbyfoursquare.com>> wrote:
I'm very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and 
pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise concepts, 
and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I cannot. Can 
someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration to spend up to 
forty thousand dollars on replicating 150GB of data to two locations? This 
seems like such a completely small amount of data for such a price, even with 
having space for growth.

--
Mike Gill

From: John Aldrich 
[mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN solutions

Well, I'm looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance from 
our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of drive space 
on the servers (again...mirrored for D/R purposes.)

I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the storage appliance to 
share the files out as if they were on the local drive. My estimated budget for 
this is about $30-40K for a pair of mirrored storage appliances. I would like 
to have one of the devices at a remote location for D/R purposes. Pretty much 
everyone has said that they think that can be done, even over a 5 Mbit VPN.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CA57D8.F9E75400][cid:image002@01ca57d8.f9e75400]

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN solutions

What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be constrained to?)

That might help your selection process.

You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and the extent of 
your budget.If they are in sync, then that will be better.  If not, then a 
recalibration in one direction or another will be necessary, and then the 
solutions will come from that.

ASB (My XeeSM Profile)

Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich 
mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com>> wrote:
Yeah... but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be lower cost. :) 
I got an MSRP on an Equallogic system... $42K for a 5 Tb useable system... No 
way I'm going to be able to afford two of those to do D/R. :(

[cid:image001.jpg@01CA57D8.F9E75400][cid:image002@01ca57d8.f9e75400]

From: Brian Desmond 
[mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN solutions

Lefthand (Bought by HP) and Equalogic (bought by Dell) play in this space as 
well.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: John Aldrich 
[mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Richard Stovall]

Nevermind.  The question should be "Is the issuing authority trusted?"

 

The issuing authority seems to be UTN-USERFirst-Hardware
(usertrust.com).

 

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/exchangesvrmobility/thr
ead/948476e0-e69d-43ec-a31f-0e6a271fc7ba/

 

 

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:richard.stov...@researchdata.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Is it a self-signed cert?

 

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.{token}

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Eldridge, Dave]

No I get mine from directnic.com

Do I need the private key also? If so the option to save as a p7b
extension is greyed out.

 

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:richard.stov...@researchdata.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Is it a self-signed cert?

 

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: mass mailer software

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

+1

Keep it professional.  Keep it off of your own servers.

--
ME2


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

> We use Constant Contact for all mass email.
>
> _
> Cameron Cooper
> IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
> Aurico Reports, Inc
> Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
> ccoo...@aurico.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:02 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: mass mailer software
>
> Pay a 3rd party professional vendor.
>
> What are you trying to accomplish?  This is important because there
> are a number of different ways to do it that can annoy people less.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Heaton 
> wrote:
> > Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?
> >
> > Joseph L. Heaton
> > Windows Server Support Group
> > Information Technology Branch
> > Department of Fish and Game
> > 1807 13th Street, Suite 201
> > Sacramento, CA  95811
> > Desk: (916) 323-1284
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> > ~   ~
> >
> >
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Dell vendor rant!

[Ben Scott]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Erik Goldoff  wrote:
>> "Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap installed."
>
> From a security standpoint, nondisclosure of that software being
> preinstalled by the vendor is an extreme violation of trust and tantamount ...

  You're accepting a computer with software pre-installed by someone
else, most of which you cannot view the code to, and you're okay with
that.  But they load a sniffer and you're calling the FBI?

  As a guy who frequently has to wear a "network admin" hat, I
wouldn't want to try and diagnose a network trouble without a sniffer,
any more than I would want to not be able to use ping or traceroute.

  FYI, a network sniffer (tcpdump) is a standard tool with many *nix systems.

  But then again, there are people who call abuse desks when someone pings them.

-- Ben

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Ransomware

[James Kerr]

yeah man, ransomwares have been around for some time now.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Roger Wright 
  To: NT System Admin Issues 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:05 PM
  Subject: Ransomware


  Spyware, Malware, Scareware, etc  now we have Ransomware.

  http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=4748


  Roger Wright
  ___

  Sent from Tampa, FL, United States




 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Ransomware

[Roger Wright]

Spyware, Malware, Scareware, etc  now we have Ransomware.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=4748


Roger Wright
___

Sent from Tampa, FL, United States

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Richard Stovall]

Is it a self-signed cert?

 

From: Eldridge, Dave [mailto:d...@parkviewmc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

 

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 

This e-mail contains the thoughts and opinions of the sender and does
not represent official Parkview Medical Center policy.

This communication is intended only for the recipient(s) named above,
may be confidential and/or legally privileged: and, must be treated as
such in accordance with state and federal laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
communication, or any of its contents, is prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please return to sender and delete
the message from your computer system.{token}

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

OT error loading ssl cert onto wm 6.1 phone

[Eldridge, Dave]

Looking for some guidance here. 

 

Right up front I have no experience with mobile phones and I now I have
to start supporting a bunch of these.

My boss has a Samsung i760 running wm 6.1 and is getting the following
error code 85010014

 

I have done the following to export the cert off the exchange server
2003 sp2. 

 

Opened up mmc and certs.

 

Went to personal folder.

Right click my web cert called email.domain.com, export, no to export
the private key

Select crypto (p7b) as the file extension.

Give a file name and load onto phone

The cert does install on the phone but gets an error code of 85010014
when trying to connect to exchange.

What am I missing here? This shouldn't be this hard.

 

Any ideas?

Thanks

 

Can't wait until the BES part of this project comes up also. J

 

 




This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the 
intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately via e-mail 
if you have received this e-mail by mistake; then, delete this e-mail from your 
system.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: SAN solutions

[Andrew S. Baker]

The problem being solved is *not *merely the replication of 150GB of data.

The problem, as I understand it, it to provide a stand-alone, but robust and
redundant storage solution that can support current and future growth, where
current needs are ~150GB and future needs are estimated at 3-5TB.   The
replication will be across the WAN.

There are a number of ways to achieve this goal.  One of the things we've
been recommending is to not overstate the storage needs of the next few
years.   If growth is unpredictable, then spend more for a highly expandable
chassis now.  If growth is more modest (and I believe that it will be, given
the current needs), then get an appliance with some growth ability, but at a
better price point.   When you need to get something else, the technology
and pricing will be much better anyway.

Some people will roll their own solution, and some will obtain the largest
solution with expandability that money can by today.  And there are viable
options in between.


*ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 

*Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*




On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Mike Gill wrote:

>  I’m very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and
> pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise
> concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I
> cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration
> to spend up to *forty thousand dollars* on replicating 150GB of data to
> two locations? This seems like such a completely small amount of data for
> such a price, even with having space for growth.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Gill
>
>
>
> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> Well, I’m looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance
> from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of
> drive space on the servers (again…mirrored for D/R purposes.)
>
>
>
> I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the storage appliance
> to share the files out as if they were on the local drive. My estimated
> budget for this is about $30-40K for a pair of mirrored storage appliances.
> I would like to have one of the devices at a remote location for D/R
> purposes. Pretty much everyone has said that they think that can be done,
> even over a 5 Mbit VPN.
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be constrained
> to?)
>
> That might help your selection process.
>
> You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and the extent of
> your budget.If they are in sync, then that will be better.  If not, then
> a recalibration in one direction or another will be necessary, and then the
> solutions will come from that.
>
> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
>
> *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich <
> jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah… but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be lower cost.
> J I got an MSRP on an Equallogic system… $42K for a 5 Tb useable system…
> No way I’m going to be able to afford two of those to do D/R. L
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> *Lefthand (Bought by HP) and Equalogic (bought by Dell) play in this space
> as well. *
>
> * *
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Brian Desmond*
>
> *br...@briandesmond.com*
>
> * *
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> * *
>
> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:28 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* SAN solutions
>
>
>
> Anyone know anything about a SAN manufacturer called Compellent? I just had
> a webinar with them and they seem like they’re pretty good. They have
> separate drive chassis and controllers, with the controller being
> essentially a server class machine. Anyway, just thought I’d ask in here if
> anyone had any experience with them.
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
> 07:38:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
> 07:38:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that IS

Re: mass mailer software

[Roger Wright]

I've used Group Mail Pro at a previous employer.

But these days you're better off using Constant Contact, MyEmma, MailChimp,
or other similar service to assure you comply with CanSpam regulations,
improve your delivery success ratio, and avoid being flagged as a spammer.


Roger Wright
___




On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:

> Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?
>
> Joseph L. Heaton
> Windows Server Support Group
> Information Technology Branch
> Department of Fish and Game
> 1807 13th Street, Suite 201
> Sacramento, CA  95811
> Desk: (916) 323-1284
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[James Kerr]

Your over analyzing, just deploy the single exchange box.

James

- Original Message - 
From: 

To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Subject: RE: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?


Thanks to Jim Kennedy, Joseph Castle, and everyone else who responded so
far.

It seems like the general consensus here is, since my current Exchange
organization running Exchange 2003 runs under a single Exchange box without
any issues, that I should likely be able to migrate to Exchange 2007 using
a single Exchange 2007 server (typical installation) which includes all the
various roles; Hub, Client Access, Mailbox, etc. without a real need for a
Edge Transport.

Then I come across an MS tech article (Deploying a Simple Exchange Server
2007 Organization) that says -->

"During the planning phase of your deployment, and before you deploy any
Exchange 2007 servers in a simple Exchange organization, consider the
following points:
. We recommend that you deploy the single-server simple Exchange
organization only when using Windows SBS.
. We recommend that you deploy the multiple-server simple Exchange
organization only when using Centro." (Centro is EBS I believe)

So, MS doesn't recommend a Simple Exchange Organization server solution
unless you're running SBS or EBS?  Serious?  I have seen this reference to
NOT using a single Exchange server except only with SBS (or EBS) documented
now several times.

Which leads me to having to setup a Standard Exchange Organization instead
and going to have to setup multiple exchange servers?

Or am I just over-analyzing this stuff?  Maybe I should just push ahead
with a single Exchange server box with all the roles rolled into one
anyways.  We're only talking 300 mailboxes here with average mailbox sizes
of only 20-30MB approximately.

Thanks for tips.











1.  When building my new Exchange 2007 server, I am probably going to
install Windows 2008 right away to save me from having to upgrade in
the future.  Is this what most people are doing, or are they sticking
with Windows 2003 for Exchange 2007



2. If I install Windows 2008, can I use my Exchange 2007 CD (no service
pack), or do I need an Exchange 2007 CD (slipstreamed w/SP1)?


http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123694.aspx


3. My Exchange 2003 environment consists of a single Exchange 2003 server.
It is currently virtualized under ESX with a single vCPU and 1GB memory
with 300 mailboxes.  Performance monitoring shows the system is NOT
taxed at all (not even close).  With Exchange 2007, is a single vCPU
and 4GB memory going to suffice for approx. the same level of performance?


300 MB's 2k7? Uhm, you prolly could but it would be like watching Tugo's
race? You can do it, but know want to see it happen:) I virtualize 2007
with 1 proc and 4 gig and it works for 6 users at home, but the console is
dog slow.


4. Do I "require" a seperate Edge Server?  Or can that be on the same
box as our hub transport, client mailboxes, etc.? (it seems doing a

"typical"

installation of Exchange 2007 puts it all on all box even though the
"typical" installation doesnt say anything at all about Edge
Transport?)


It can all be on one box, sure. Different needs require splitting it up,
but it is designed to coexist.


5. In a small sized Exchange organization (a single Exchange 2003 server),
would you "recommend" a seperate Edge Server?   Or just lump it in with the
main Exchange 2007 box.


Put it on one, keep it simple. If you have specific needs like HA or sec
for edge servers, you would know:) If you have a single 2003 box now, a
single 2007 box will do. BTW, 2010 is peeking its head through the door,
and it plain rocks.


I've read a number of Exchange 2007 technotes, articles, etc, but I am
looking for real world answers from people that have done this.   Thanks!


HTH,
jlc



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)

[James Kerr]

Dont even buy a PBX, it isnt worth it anymore. Just get cheap SIP phones and 
use * as your PBX.
  - Original Message - 
  From: David Mazzaccaro 
  To: NT System Admin Issues 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:43 PM
  Subject: RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)


  Thanks!





--
  From: Todd Lemmiksoo [mailto:tlemmik...@all-mode.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:39 PM
  To: NT System Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)


  good luck! they are a low end phone system. We sell them only as a last 
resort.



--
  From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:18 PM
  To: NT System Admin Issues
  Subject: RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)


  iWatsu
  So pray for me...
  LOL
  yeah yeah.. poor Dell (ok I should have said (PBX vendor rant) boo hoo.


   

--
  From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM
  To: NT System Admin Issues
  Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!



  Vendor isn't NEC, is it? 

  "David Mazzaccaro"  wrote on 10/28/2009 
10:53:01 AM:

  > So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
  > I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB 
  > RAID1 SATA drives. 
  > The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
  > drive in it. 
  > Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to 
  > tell the difference? 
  > ARHGHGHG 
  >   
  >   



 



 



 



 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[Tim Vander Kooi]

I set my original Exchange 2007 Server here up as a single server (not SBS or 
EBS) when I migrated from Exchange 2003 and it was very simple. Later, when 
hardware was available, I broke apart my configuration to allow for my CAS and 
my MBX to be on separate servers. This was also very simple to do, just had to 
be very careful with the connector configurations to ensure that the mail kept 
flowing.
Tim

-Original Message-
From: jesse-r...@wi.rr.com [mailto:jesse-r...@wi.rr.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:46 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

Thanks to Jim Kennedy, Joseph Castle, and everyone else who responded so far.

It seems like the general consensus here is, since my current Exchange 
organization running Exchange 2003 runs under a single Exchange box without any 
issues, that I should likely be able to migrate to Exchange 2007 using a single 
Exchange 2007 server (typical installation) which includes all the various 
roles; Hub, Client Access, Mailbox, etc. without a real need for a Edge 
Transport.

Then I come across an MS tech article (Deploying a Simple Exchange Server
2007 Organization) that says -->

"During the planning phase of your deployment, and before you deploy any 
Exchange 2007 servers in a simple Exchange organization, consider the following 
points:
*   We recommend that you deploy the single-server simple Exchange
organization only when using Windows SBS.
*   We recommend that you deploy the multiple-server simple Exchange
organization only when using Centro." (Centro is EBS I believe)

So, MS doesn't recommend a Simple Exchange Organization server solution unless 
you're running SBS or EBS?  Serious?  I have seen this reference to NOT using a 
single Exchange server except only with SBS (or EBS) documented now several 
times. 

Which leads me to having to setup a Standard Exchange Organization instead and 
going to have to setup multiple exchange servers?

Or am I just over-analyzing this stuff?  Maybe I should just push ahead with a 
single Exchange server box with all the roles rolled into one anyways.  We're 
only talking 300 mailboxes here with average mailbox sizes of only 20-30MB 
approximately.

Thanks for tips.










>1.  When building my new Exchange 2007 server, I am probably going to 
>install Windows 2008 right away to save me from having to upgrade in 
>the future.  Is this what most people are doing, or are they sticking 
>with Windows 2003 for Exchange 2007

>2. If I install Windows 2008, can I use my Exchange 2007 CD (no service 
>pack), or do I need an Exchange 2007 CD (slipstreamed w/SP1)?

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123694.aspx

>3. My Exchange 2003 environment consists of a single Exchange 2003 server.
>It is currently virtualized under ESX with a single vCPU and 1GB memory 
>with 300 mailboxes.  Performance monitoring shows the system is NOT 
>taxed at all (not even close).  With Exchange 2007, is a single vCPU 
>and 4GB memory going to suffice for approx. the same level of performance?

300 MB's 2k7? Uhm, you prolly could but it would be like watching Tugo's race? 
You can do it, but know want to see it happen:) I virtualize 2007 with 1 proc 
and 4 gig and it works for 6 users at home, but the console is dog slow.

>4. Do I "require" a seperate Edge Server?  Or can that be on the same 
>box as our hub transport, client mailboxes, etc.? (it seems doing a
"typical"
>installation of Exchange 2007 puts it all on all box even though the 
>"typical" installation doesnt say anything at all about Edge
>Transport?)

It can all be on one box, sure. Different needs require splitting it up, but it 
is designed to coexist.

>5. In a small sized Exchange organization (a single Exchange 2003 server),
>would you "recommend" a seperate Edge Server?   Or just lump it in with the
>main Exchange 2007 box.

Put it on one, keep it simple. If you have specific needs like HA or sec for 
edge servers, you would know:) If you have a single 2003 box now, a single 2007 
box will do. BTW, 2010 is peeking its head through the door, and it plain rocks.

>I've read a number of Exchange 2007 technotes, articles, etc, but I am
>looking for real world answers from people that have done this.   Thanks!

HTH,
jlc



mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: SAN solutions

[Sean Martin]

*"Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration to
spend up to forty thousand dollars on replicating 150GB of data to two
locations?"*

Maybe it's a government project?

- Sean



On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Mike Gill wrote:

>  I’m very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and
> pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise
> concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I
> cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration
> to spend up to *forty thousand dollars* on replicating 150GB of data to
> two locations? This seems like such a completely small amount of data for
> such a price, even with having space for growth.
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Gill
>
>
>
> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> Well, I’m looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance
> from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of
> drive space on the servers (again…mirrored for D/R purposes.)
>
>
>
> I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the storage appliance
> to share the files out as if they were on the local drive. My estimated
> budget for this is about $30-40K for a pair of mirrored storage appliances.
> I would like to have one of the devices at a remote location for D/R
> purposes. Pretty much everyone has said that they think that can be done,
> even over a 5 Mbit VPN.
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be constrained
> to?)
>
> That might help your selection process.
>
> You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and the extent of
> your budget.If they are in sync, then that will be better.  If not, then
> a recalibration in one direction or another will be necessary, and then the
> solutions will come from that.
>
> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) 
>
> *Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich <
> jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah… but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be lower cost.
> J I got an MSRP on an Equallogic system… $42K for a 5 Tb useable system…
> No way I’m going to be able to afford two of those to do D/R. L
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 PM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
>
> *Subject:* RE: SAN solutions
>
>
>
> *Lefthand (Bought by HP) and Equalogic (bought by Dell) play in this space
> as well. *
>
> * *
>
> *Thanks,*
>
> *Brian Desmond*
>
> *br...@briandesmond.com*
>
> * *
>
> *c - 312.731.3132*
>
> * *
>
> *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:28 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* SAN solutions
>
>
>
> Anyone know anything about a SAN manufacturer called Compellent? I just had
> a webinar with them and they seem like they’re pretty good. They have
> separate drive chassis and controllers, with the controller being
> essentially a server class machine. Anyway, just thought I’d ask in here if
> anyone had any experience with them.
>
>
>
> [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
> 07:38:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
> 07:38:00
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Exch2003 to 2007 experiences?

[jesse-r...@wi.rr.com]

Thanks to Jim Kennedy, Joseph Castle, and everyone else who responded so
far.

It seems like the general consensus here is, since my current Exchange
organization running Exchange 2003 runs under a single Exchange box without
any issues, that I should likely be able to migrate to Exchange 2007 using
a single Exchange 2007 server (typical installation) which includes all the
various roles; Hub, Client Access, Mailbox, etc. without a real need for a
Edge Transport.

Then I come across an MS tech article (Deploying a Simple Exchange Server
2007 Organization) that says -->

"During the planning phase of your deployment, and before you deploy any
Exchange 2007 servers in a simple Exchange organization, consider the
following points:
•   We recommend that you deploy the single-server simple Exchange
organization only when using Windows SBS.
•   We recommend that you deploy the multiple-server simple Exchange
organization only when using Centro." (Centro is EBS I believe)

So, MS doesn't recommend a Simple Exchange Organization server solution
unless you're running SBS or EBS?  Serious?  I have seen this reference to
NOT using a single Exchange server except only with SBS (or EBS) documented
now several times. 

Which leads me to having to setup a Standard Exchange Organization instead
and going to have to setup multiple exchange servers?

Or am I just over-analyzing this stuff?  Maybe I should just push ahead
with a single Exchange server box with all the roles rolled into one
anyways.  We're only talking 300 mailboxes here with average mailbox sizes
of only 20-30MB approximately.

Thanks for tips.










>1.  When building my new Exchange 2007 server, I am probably going to 
>install Windows 2008 right away to save me from having to upgrade in 
>the future.  Is this what most people are doing, or are they sticking 
>with Windows 2003 for Exchange 2007

>2. If I install Windows 2008, can I use my Exchange 2007 CD (no service 
>pack), or do I need an Exchange 2007 CD (slipstreamed w/SP1)?

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb123694.aspx

>3. My Exchange 2003 environment consists of a single Exchange 2003 server.
>It is currently virtualized under ESX with a single vCPU and 1GB memory 
>with 300 mailboxes.  Performance monitoring shows the system is NOT 
>taxed at all (not even close).  With Exchange 2007, is a single vCPU 
>and 4GB memory going to suffice for approx. the same level of performance?

300 MB's 2k7? Uhm, you prolly could but it would be like watching Tugo's
race? You can do it, but know want to see it happen:) I virtualize 2007
with 1 proc and 4 gig and it works for 6 users at home, but the console is
dog slow.

>4. Do I "require" a seperate Edge Server?  Or can that be on the same 
>box as our hub transport, client mailboxes, etc.? (it seems doing a
"typical"
>installation of Exchange 2007 puts it all on all box even though the 
>"typical" installation doesnt say anything at all about Edge 
>Transport?)

It can all be on one box, sure. Different needs require splitting it up,
but it is designed to coexist.

>5. In a small sized Exchange organization (a single Exchange 2003 server),
>would you "recommend" a seperate Edge Server?   Or just lump it in with the
>main Exchange 2007 box.

Put it on one, keep it simple. If you have specific needs like HA or sec
for edge servers, you would know:) If you have a single 2003 box now, a
single 2007 box will do. BTW, 2010 is peeking its head through the door,
and it plain rocks.

>I've read a number of Exchange 2007 technotes, articles, etc, but I am
>looking for real world answers from people that have done this.   Thanks!

HTH,
jlc



mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)

[David Mazzaccaro]

Thanks!
 
 



From: Todd Lemmiksoo [mailto:tlemmik...@all-mode.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:39 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)


good luck! they are a low end phone system. We sell them only as a last
resort.



From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:18 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)


iWatsu
So pray for me...
LOL
yeah yeah.. poor Dell (ok I should have said (PBX vendor rant) boo hoo.
 

 


From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!



Vendor isn't NEC, is it? 

"David Mazzaccaro"  wrote on 10/28/2009
10:53:01 AM:

> So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB 
> RAID1 SATA drives. 
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it. 
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to 
> tell the difference? 
> ARHGHGHG 
>   
>   

 

 

 

 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)

[Todd Lemmiksoo]

good luck! they are a low end phone system. We sell them only as a last
resort.



From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:18 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)


iWatsu
So pray for me...
LOL
yeah yeah.. poor Dell (ok I should have said (PBX vendor rant) boo hoo.
 

 


From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!



Vendor isn't NEC, is it? 

"David Mazzaccaro"  wrote on 10/28/2009
10:53:01 AM:

> So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB 
> RAID1 SATA drives. 
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it. 
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to 
> tell the difference? 
> ARHGHGHG 
>   
>   

 

 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: SAN solutions

[Mike Gill]

I'm very small time, but I like to think that after a little reading and
pondering I can at least have a basic understanding around enterprise
concepts, and why some things cost more. Sometimes, a lot more. But here I
cannot. Can someone please enlighten me as to why there is a consideration
to spend up to forty thousand dollars on replicating 150GB of data to two
locations? This seems like such a completely small amount of data for such a
price, even with having space for growth.

 

-- 
Mike Gill

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:27 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN solutions

 

Well, I'm looking to off-load our storage to a dedicated storage appliance
from our mirrored Dell servers. Currently we are using about 150 Gigs of
drive space on the servers (again.mirrored for D/R purposes.)

 

I am looking at using iSCSI to connect the servers to the storage appliance
to share the files out as if they were on the local drive. My estimated
budget for this is about $30-40K for a pair of mirrored storage appliances.
I would like to have one of the devices at a remote location for D/R
purposes. Pretty much everyone has said that they think that can be done,
even over a 5 Mbit VPN.

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 1:11 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN solutions

 

What is the budget you working with (or you believe you'll be constrained
to?)

That might help your selection process.

You basically need to indicate the desired functionality, and the extent of
your budget.If they are in sync, then that will be better.  If not, then
a recalibration in one direction or another will be necessary, and then the
solutions will come from that.

ASB (My XeeSM Profile)  
Providing Competitive Advantage through Effective IT Leadership

 

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:04 PM, John Aldrich 
wrote:

Yeah. but I have a feeling that the Compellent solution may be lower cost. J
I got an MSRP on an Equallogic system. $42K for a 5 Tb useable system. No
way I'm going to be able to afford two of those to do D/R. L

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:53 PM


To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: SAN solutions

 

Lefthand (Bought by HP) and Equalogic (bought by Dell) play in this space as
well. 

 

Thanks,

Brian Desmond

br...@briandesmond.com

 

c - 312.731.3132

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: SAN solutions

 

Anyone know anything about a SAN manufacturer called Compellent? I just had
a webinar with them and they seem like they're pretty good. They have
separate drive chassis and controllers, with the controller being
essentially a server class machine. Anyway, just thought I'd ask in here if
anyone had any experience with them.

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

 

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
07:38:00

 

 

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.34/2462 - Release Date: 10/27/09
07:38:00

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Stood up by vendor

[Erik Goldoff]

That's my part of the country, care to share the VAR's identity ???  I'd
like to know who to avoid too.
 

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

  _  

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor



No. It was a VAR out of the Atlanta area. I sent him an email asking if we
needed to reschedule and he said he'd never received the Outlook Invite.
It's a Symantec VAR, fwiw. I understand they make pretty decent backup
software, but I know better than to even *talk* to them about Antivirus. J

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Was it EMC?  They have done that to me at least 4 times in two years

 

  _  

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

NAS/SAN/Backup stuff. 

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Vendor for what?

 

John W. Cook

Systems Administrator

Partnership For Strong Families

315 SE 2nd Ave

Gainesville, Fl 32601

Office (352) 393-2741 x320

Cell (352) 215-6944

Fax (352) 393-2746

MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

 

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33 now.
Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left him a
voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

 

 

 

  _  

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.

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09
09:34:00

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential
information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete
and destroy all copies of the original message.

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09
09:34:00

 


 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: mass mailer software

[John Aldrich]

Agreed. SpamCop (one of the premier anti-spam organizations) has given their
grudging seal of approval. Kinda like "well, if you're gonna do bulk
emailing, these guys are the ones to do it for you." Obviously SpamCop
doesn't approve of *any* bulk email where the recipient doesn't sign up, but
this is the least bad option, according to them. :-)




-Original Message-
From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: mass mailer software

We use Constant Contact for all mass email.

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021    Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com

-Original Message-
From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: mass mailer software

Pay a 3rd party professional vendor.

What are you trying to accomplish?  This is important because there
are a number of different ways to do it that can annoy people less.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:
> Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?
>
> Joseph L. Heaton
> Windows Server Support Group
> Information Technology Branch
> Department of Fish and Game
> 1807 13th Street, Suite 201
> Sacramento, CA  95811
> Desk: (916) 323-1284
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09
09:34:00

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Stood up by vendor

[John Aldrich]

No. It was a VAR out of the Atlanta area. I sent him an email asking if we
needed to reschedule and he said he'd never received the Outlook Invite.
It's a Symantec VAR, fwiw. I understand they make pretty decent backup
software, but I know better than to even *talk* to them about Antivirus. J

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Was it EMC?  They have done that to me at least 4 times in two years

 

  _  

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

NAS/SAN/Backup stuff. 

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Vendor for what?

 

John W. Cook

Systems Administrator

Partnership For Strong Families

315 SE 2nd Ave

Gainesville, Fl 32601

Office (352) 393-2741 x320

Cell (352) 215-6944

Fax (352) 393-2746

MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

 

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33 now.
Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left him a
voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

 

 

 

  _  

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.

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09
09:34:00

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential
information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete
and destroy all copies of the original message.

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09
09:34:00


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Stood up by vendor

[Ralph Smith]

I suspect when they realize I'm a non-profit they figure it isn't worth
their time.

 



From: Brumbaugh, Luke [mailto:luke.brumba...@butlerahs.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:06 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Hell they always show up for me and try to sell me way over priced crap
that I don't need.

 

 

From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Was it EMC?  They have done that to me at least 4 times in two years

 



From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

NAS/SAN/Backup stuff. 

 

  

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Vendor for what?

 

John W. Cook

Systems Administrator

Partnership For Strong Families

315 SE 2nd Ave

Gainesville, Fl 32601

Office (352) 393-2741 x320

Cell (352) 215-6944

Fax (352) 393-2746

MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

 

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33
now. Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left
him a voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 



 

 

 

 



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.

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date:
10/28/09 09:34:00

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice:

**

This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential
information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it
is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this
communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email, delete and destroy all copies of the original
message.

 

 

 

**

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted in this message is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may
contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by
persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and destroy all
copies of this document. Thank you. 

Butler Animal Health Supply

**

 

 

 

Confidentiality Notice: 

--



This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential 
information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by 
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete and 
destroy all copies of the original message.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Stood up by vendor

[Brumbaugh, Luke]

Hell they always show up for me and try to sell me way over priced crap that I 
don't need.


From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

Was it EMC?  They have done that to me at least 4 times in two years


From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

NAS/SAN/Backup stuff.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CA57D7.CFB1ED90][cid:image002@01ca57d7.cfb1ed90]

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

Vendor for what?

John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
315 SE 2nd Ave
Gainesville, Fl 32601
Office (352) 393-2741 x320
Cell (352) 215-6944
Fax (352) 393-2746
MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33 now. 
Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left him a 
voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

[cid:image001.jpg@01CA57D7.CFB1ED90][cid:image002@01ca57d7.cfb1ed90]







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.





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 
09:34:00






Confidentiality Notice:

**

This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential 
information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by 
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete and 
destroy all copies of the original message.






**
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  The information transmitted in this message is 
intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain 
confidential and/or privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, 
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other 
than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received this in error, 
please contact the sender and destroy all copies of this document.  Thank you.  
Butler Animal Health Supply
**


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Stood up by vendor

[Maglinger, Paul]

Well our primary sonet line is showing a link error and we're running on
the protected circuit now.   The vendor (oh, let's call them BU&U) was
going to come out yesterday evening at 6:00pm and get it straightened
out.  Calls me at 4:56pm saying that the trouble ticket never got turned
in and we'd have to reschedule for the next day.  Never mind that I
re-arranged things so I could stay after hours for these wahoos, but I
never heard back on what time they're coming out today.  Getting ready
to call them back to find out what's going on.  Another gold star for
customer service.

 

-Paul

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

 

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33
now. Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left
him a voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 

  

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Stood up by vendor

[Ralph Smith]

Was it EMC?  They have done that to me at least 4 times in two years

 



From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

NAS/SAN/Backup stuff. 

 

  

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Vendor for what?

 

John W. Cook

Systems Administrator

Partnership For Strong Families

315 SE 2nd Ave

Gainesville, Fl 32601

Office (352) 393-2741 x320

Cell (352) 215-6944

Fax (352) 393-2746

MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

 

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33
now. Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left
him a voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 



 

 

 

 



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.

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date:
10/28/09 09:34:00

 

 

Confidentiality Notice: 

--



This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential 
information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is 
addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by 
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not 
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete and 
destroy all copies of the original message.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: mass mailer software

[Cameron Cooper]

We use Constant Contact for all mass email.

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021    Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com

-Original Message-
From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: mass mailer software

Pay a 3rd party professional vendor.

What are you trying to accomplish?  This is important because there
are a number of different ways to do it that can annoy people less.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:
> Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?
>
> Joseph L. Heaton
> Windows Server Support Group
> Information Technology Branch
> Department of Fish and Game
> 1807 13th Street, Suite 201
> Sacramento, CA  95811
> Desk: (916) 323-1284
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: mass mailer software

[Steven Peck]

Pay a 3rd party professional vendor.

What are you trying to accomplish?  This is important because there
are a number of different ways to do it that can annoy people less.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:
> Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?
>
> Joseph L. Heaton
> Windows Server Support Group
> Information Technology Branch
> Department of Fish and Game
> 1807 13th Street, Suite 201
> Sacramento, CA  95811
> Desk: (916) 323-1284
>
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

mass mailer software

[Joseph Heaton]

Anyone have a good recommendation for this type of software?

Joseph L. Heaton
Windows Server Support Group
Information Technology Branch
Department of Fish and Game
1807 13th Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, CA  95811
Desk: (916) 323-1284
 
 



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Foxit Reader

[Rick Berry]

Foxit reader saves me a lot of pain in Windows TS2008.

From: James Hill [mailto:james.h...@superamart.com.au]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:08 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Foxit Reader

I was a bit late to the party with this one.  This looks like quite a nice 
little Acrobat Reader alternative.

Is anyone here using this as the default pdf reader?  Have you had any issues?  
Any other feedback on it?

James.





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Stood up by vendor

[John Aldrich]

NAS/SAN/Backup stuff. 

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Stood up by vendor

 

Vendor for what?

 

John W. Cook

Systems Administrator

Partnership For Strong Families

315 SE 2nd Ave

Gainesville, Fl 32601

Office (352) 393-2741 x320

Cell (352) 215-6944

Fax (352) 393-2746

MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

 

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

 

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33 now.
Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left him a
voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

 

 

 

  _  

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.

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09
09:34:00


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

Re: Stood up by vendor

[RichardMcClary]

On the contrary - he not only wants to, he does business very badly...
--
richard

"John Aldrich"  wrote on 10/28/2009 12:34:24 
PM:

> I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It?s 
> 1:33 now. Guess he didn?t want to do business very badly. I called 
> and left him a voicemail on his cell and didn?t get anything back. 
*shrug*
> 
> [image removed] [image removed] 
> 
> 
> 
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Stood up by vendor

[John Cook]

Vendor for what?

John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
315 SE 2nd Ave
Gainesville, Fl 32601
Office (352) 393-2741 x320
Cell (352) 215-6944
Fax (352) 393-2746
MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4

From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Stood up by vendor

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33 now. 
Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left him a 
voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

[cid:image001.jpg@01CA57D3.826BCFA0][cid:image002@01ca57d3.826bcfa0]







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.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Carl Houseman]

That's just it, the selfupdate isn't down, and neither is anything else.  On a 
client, do a wuauclt /detectnow, wait a couple minutes, then look at the end of 
\windows\windowsupdate.log to see what happened.

 

Carl

 

From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:19 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

With the selfupdate down… do you clients update?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Hmm, it would appear these errors have been happening for several months – ever 
since WSUS was installed on this particular server.  Never had issues so didn't 
go looking for problems.

 

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Almost the same exact problem was reported over on Yahoo's SBS list, and I just 
checked my WSUS server and I have the same set of errors in the Application 
log.  Selfupdate is reported as down too.

 

However, everything WSUS appears to be working.  I asked the WSUS server to 
update itself, and the windowsupdate.log reports that everything went fine – 
selfupdate was working.

 

So it appears these errors might not be real, or perhaps transient.

 

Carl

 

From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

  _  

From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Stood up by vendor

[John Aldrich]

I had a 1PM meeting with a prospective vendor this afternoon. It's 1:33 now.
Guess he didn't want to do business very badly. I called and left him a
voicemail on his cell and didn't get anything back. *shrug*

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Bob Fronk]

Thanks, I didn’t know the release date.  I will look into the CPU issue.

From: Brian Desmond [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:27 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Bob-

Exchange 2010 will be available to volume licensing customers on Nov 1. I would 
not deploy the RC in production – there is no support for that.

You can’t pass through more than I think 4 CPUs to a HyperV instance so you’d 
be not using 12 of those cores. Maybe this has changed in R2 though.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:23 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

I was planning on rolling out Exchange 2007 in the next 60 days.  I have the 
hardware and need to complete the project.  Given that the RC is upgradable to 
RTM, would any of you go ahead and deploy the RC in production?  I don’t want 
to delay the project, plus I don’t want to do another migration from 2007 to 
2010.

Next question:  How many of you would install Exchange  as a VM on Hyper-V vs. 
Exchange stand alone.  I was considering running Exchange as a single VM on the 
hardware purchased to run it stand alone.  (Quad – Quad Core, 32GB Ram – 2TB 
iSCSI array)  This would be for DR purposes.



From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

You are incorrect.

It is 100K items per folder.


From: chipsh...@comcast.net [chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?
I believe that it is 100,000 items total per account not per folder.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:38:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Yes, well, lots of executives don't seem to understand how to click an "X" or 
hit the delete key. But Outlook 2007 with service pack 2 will (should) perform 
as well as Outlook 2010 RTM.

And replying to Andy Leedy's comment - yes, you can collocate CAS/HT on MB 
servers in HA situations using Exchange 2010; HOWEVER - that would also require 
you to have a redundant LB in front of that server for it to be HA.


From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Maybe?

Th���s an insane number of items in one folder.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

I believe you need Outlook 2010 to support up to 100,000 mailbox items where as 
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 5,000.
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Desmond" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Outlook 2007 (or 2003 or whatever) will work fine

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132


-Original Message-
From: Devin Meade [mailto:devin.me...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

We plan on moving from Exchange 2003 to 2010.  Possibly with two servers doing 
database replication.

Question: I am budgeting Exchange Server CALS and Exchange server itself on new 
hardware.  We currently have Outlook 2007 CALS, will those work with Exchange 
2010?  We don't plan on upgrading Outlook until probably 2011.

Thanks,
Devin

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Since SBS follows the version of Windows, you might wish for SBS 2008
> R2 to include E2010.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Partipilo 
> [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is going to be a SBS 2010 to include e2k10
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
>
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>
> Jupiter, Florida
>
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Rector 
> [mailto:sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> As my mailbox is the only one set up on our 2k7 setup, I'm definitely
> going to go to 2k10.
>
>
>
> Sean Rector, MCSE
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward 
> [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> Going t

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Brian Desmond]

Bob-

Exchange 2010 will be available to volume licensing customers on Nov 1. I would 
not deploy the RC in production – there is no support for that.

You can’t pass through more than I think 4 CPUs to a HyperV instance so you’d 
be not using 12 of those cores. Maybe this has changed in R2 though.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:23 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

I was planning on rolling out Exchange 2007 in the next 60 days.  I have the 
hardware and need to complete the project.  Given that the RC is upgradable to 
RTM, would any of you go ahead and deploy the RC in production?  I don’t want 
to delay the project, plus I don’t want to do another migration from 2007 to 
2010.

Next question:  How many of you would install Exchange  as a VM on Hyper-V vs. 
Exchange stand alone.  I was considering running Exchange as a single VM on the 
hardware purchased to run it stand alone.  (Quad – Quad Core, 32GB Ram – 2TB 
iSCSI array)  This would be for DR purposes.



From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

You are incorrect.

It is 100K items per folder.


From: chipsh...@comcast.net [chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?
I believe that it is 100,000 items total per account not per folder.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:38:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Yes, well, lots of executives don't seem to understand how to click an "X" or 
hit the delete key. But Outlook 2007 with service pack 2 will (should) perform 
as well as Outlook 2010 RTM.

And replying to Andy Leedy's comment - yes, you can collocate CAS/HT on MB 
servers in HA situations using Exchange 2010; HOWEVER - that would also require 
you to have a redundant LB in front of that server for it to be HA.


From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Maybe?

Th���s an insane number of items in one folder.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

I believe you need Outlook 2010 to support up to 100,000 mailbox items where as 
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 5,000.
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Desmond" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Outlook 2007 (or 2003 or whatever) will work fine

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132


-Original Message-
From: Devin Meade [mailto:devin.me...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

We plan on moving from Exchange 2003 to 2010.  Possibly with two servers doing 
database replication.

Question: I am budgeting Exchange Server CALS and Exchange server itself on new 
hardware.  We currently have Outlook 2007 CALS, will those work with Exchange 
2010?  We don't plan on upgrading Outlook until probably 2011.

Thanks,
Devin

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Since SBS follows the version of Windows, you might wish for SBS 2008
> R2 to include E2010.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Partipilo 
> [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is going to be a SBS 2010 to include e2k10
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
>
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>
> Jupiter, Florida
>
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Rector 
> [mailto:sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> As my mailbox is the only one set up on our 2k7 setup, I'm definitely
> going to go to 2k10.
>
>
>
> Sean Rector, MCSE
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward 
> [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> Going to 2010 prolly here also, lots of good stuff in the new
> exchange...
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, Security +, Network +
>
> ezi...@lifespan.org

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Bob Fronk]

I was planning on rolling out Exchange 2007 in the next 60 days.  I have the 
hardware and need to complete the project.  Given that the RC is upgradable to 
RTM, would any of you go ahead and deploy the RC in production?  I don’t want 
to delay the project, plus I don’t want to do another migration from 2007 to 
2010.

Next question:  How many of you would install Exchange  as a VM on Hyper-V vs. 
Exchange stand alone.  I was considering running Exchange as a single VM on the 
hardware purchased to run it stand alone.  (Quad – Quad Core, 32GB Ram – 2TB 
iSCSI array)  This would be for DR purposes.



From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:24 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

You are incorrect.

It is 100K items per folder.


From: chipsh...@comcast.net [chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?
I believe that it is 100,000 items total per account not per folder.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:38:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Yes, well, lots of executives don't seem to understand how to click an "X" or 
hit the delete key. But Outlook 2007 with service pack 2 will (should) perform 
as well as Outlook 2010 RTM.

And replying to Andy Leedy's comment - yes, you can collocate CAS/HT on MB 
servers in HA situations using Exchange 2010; HOWEVER - that would also require 
you to have a redundant LB in front of that server for it to be HA.


From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Maybe?

Th���s an insane number of items in one folder.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

I believe you need Outlook 2010 to support up to 100,000 mailbox items where as 
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 5,000.
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Desmond" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Outlook 2007 (or 2003 or whatever) will work fine

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132


-Original Message-
From: Devin Meade [mailto:devin.me...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

We plan on moving from Exchange 2003 to 2010.  Possibly with two servers doing 
database replication.

Question: I am budgeting Exchange Server CALS and Exchange server itself on new 
hardware.  We currently have Outlook 2007 CALS, will those work with Exchange 
2010?  We don't plan on upgrading Outlook until probably 2011.

Thanks,
Devin

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Since SBS follows the version of Windows, you might wish for SBS 2008
> R2 to include E2010.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Partipilo 
> [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is going to be a SBS 2010 to include e2k10
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
>
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>
> Jupiter, Florida
>
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Rector 
> [mailto:sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> As my mailbox is the only one set up on our 2k7 setup, I'm definitely
> going to go to 2k10.
>
>
>
> Sean Rector, MCSE
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward 
> [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> Going to 2010 prolly here also, lots of good stuff in the new
> exchange...
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, Security +, Network +
>
> ezi...@lifespan.org
>
> Phone:401-639-3505
>
> 
>
> From: Leedy, Andy 
> [mailto:ale...@butlerahs.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:16 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>  From what I've heard CAS/HUBS can be on the same box as MB servers.
> Less hardware. J
>
>
>
> From: Brian Desmond 
> [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> Sent: Friday, October

RE: PBX vendor rant (was: Dell vendor rant!)

[David Mazzaccaro]

iWatsu
So pray for me...
LOL
yeah yeah.. poor Dell (ok I should have said (PBX vendor rant) boo hoo.
 

 


From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:05 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!



Vendor isn't NEC, is it? 

"David Mazzaccaro"  wrote on 10/28/2009
10:53:01 AM:

> So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB 
> RAID1 SATA drives. 
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it. 
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to 
> tell the difference? 
> ARHGHGHG 
>   
>   

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Cameron Cooper]

With the selfupdate down… do you clients update?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Hmm, it would appear these errors have been happening for several months – ever 
since WSUS was installed on this particular server.  Never had issues so didn't 
go looking for problems.

 

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Almost the same exact problem was reported over on Yahoo's SBS list, and I just 
checked my WSUS server and I have the same set of errors in the Application 
log.  Selfupdate is reported as down too.

 

However, everything WSUS appears to be working.  I asked the WSUS server to 
update itself, and the windowsupdate.log reports that everything went fine – 
selfupdate was working.

 

So it appears these errors might not be real, or perhaps transient.

 

Carl

 

From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud



From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Carl Houseman]

Hmm, it would appear these errors have been happening for several months – ever 
since WSUS was installed on this particular server.  Never had issues so didn't 
go looking for problems.

 

 

From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:00 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Almost the same exact problem was reported over on Yahoo's SBS list, and I just 
checked my WSUS server and I have the same set of errors in the Application 
log.  Selfupdate is reported as down too.

 

However, everything WSUS appears to be working.  I asked the WSUS server to 
update itself, and the windowsupdate.log reports that everything went fine – 
selfupdate was working.

 

So it appears these errors might not be real, or perhaps transient.

 

Carl

 

From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

  _  

From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _  

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.

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

[Brian Desmond]

AFAIK there is no hard limit, it’s just a strong recommendation for performance 
reasons.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 9:57 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

Good to know. Thanks. On Ex 2003 is it also 5000 limit per folder?
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:24:07 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
You are incorrect.

It is 100K items per folder.


From: chipsh...@comcast.net [chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?
I believe that it is 100,000 items total per account not per folder.
- Original Message -
From: "Michael B. Smith" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:38:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Yes, well, lots of executives don't seem to understand how to click an "X" or 
hit the delete key. But Outlook 2007 with service pack 2 will (should) perform 
as well as Outlook 2010 RTM.

And replying to Andy Leedy's comment - yes, you can collocate CAS/HT on MB 
servers in HA situations using Exchange 2010; HOWEVER - that would also require 
you to have a redundant LB in front of that server for it to be HA.


From: Brian Desmond [br...@briandesmond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 12:52 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
Maybe?

Th���s an insane number of items in one folder.

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132

From: chipsh...@comcast.net [mailto:chipsh...@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

I believe you need Outlook 2010 to support up to 100,000 mailbox items where as 
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 5,000.
- Original Message -
From: "Brian Desmond" 
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:57:50 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?

Outlook 2007 (or 2003 or whatever) will work fine

Thanks,
Brian Desmond
br...@briandesmond.com

c - 312.731.3132


-Original Message-
From: Devin Meade [mailto:devin.me...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 11:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 10 or 7?

We plan on moving from Exchange 2003 to 2010.  Possibly with two servers doing 
database replication.

Question: I am budgeting Exchange Server CALS and Exchange server itself on new 
hardware.  We currently have Outlook 2007 CALS, will those work with Exchange 
2010?  We don't plan on upgrading Outlook until probably 2011.

Thanks,
Devin

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Carl Houseman 
mailto:c.house...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Since SBS follows the version of Windows, you might wish for SBS 2008
> R2 to include E2010.  But I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
>
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> From: Phillip Partipilo 
> [mailto:p...@psnet.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 10:12 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is going to be a SBS 2010 to include e2k10
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Partipilo
>
> Parametric Solutions Inc.
>
> Jupiter, Florida
>
> (561) 747-6107
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Rector 
> [mailto:sean.rec...@vaopera.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> As my mailbox is the only one set up on our 2k7 setup, I'm definitely
> going to go to 2k10.
>
>
>
> Sean Rector, MCSE
>
>
>
> From: Ziots, Edward 
> [mailto:ezi...@lifespan.org]
> Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> Going to 2010 prolly here also, lots of good stuff in the new
> exchange...
>
> Z
>
>
>
> Edward Ziots
>
> Network Engineer
>
> Lifespan Organization
>
> MCSE,MCSA,MCP+I, ME, CCA, Security +, Network +
>
> ezi...@lifespan.org
>
> Phone:401-639-3505
>
> 
>
> From: Leedy, Andy 
> [mailto:ale...@butlerahs.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:16 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
>  From what I've heard CAS/HUBS can be on the same box as MB servers.
> Less hardware. J
>
>
>
> From: Brian Desmond 
> [mailto:br...@briandesmond.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:07 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Exchange 10 or 7?
>
>
>
> You're going to be doing the work twice to go from 2007 to 2010.
> There's no in place upgrade or anything 

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Cameron Cooper]

I believe that they are all controlled with the Updates Services service which 
uses the NT Authority\NetworkService account.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:53 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Can these be restarted in the Services console? What account are they dependent 
on? 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud



From: Cameron Cooper 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:53:06 2009
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud



From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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.

 

 

 

 

 



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: Dell vendor rant!

[RichardMcClary]

Vendor isn't NEC, is it?

"David Mazzaccaro"  wrote on 10/28/2009 
10:53:01 AM:

> So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB 
> RAID1 SATA drives. 
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it. 
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to 
> tell the difference? 
> ARHGHGHG 
> 
> 
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Carl Houseman]

Almost the same exact problem was reported over on Yahoo's SBS list, and I just 
checked my WSUS server and I have the same set of errors in the Application 
log.  Selfupdate is reported as down too.

 

However, everything WSUS appears to be working.  I asked the WSUS server to 
update itself, and the windowsupdate.log reports that everything went fine – 
selfupdate was working.

 

So it appears these errors might not be real, or perhaps transient.

 

Carl

 

From: Cameron Cooper [mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:53 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

  _  

From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _  

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.

 

 

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[John Cook]

Can these be restarted in the Services console? What account are they dependent 
on?
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud


From: Cameron Cooper
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:53:06 2009
Subject: RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log
Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log


Possibly do an IIS reset
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud


From: Jon Harris
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log
Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

Jon
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper 
mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com>> wrote:
Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com












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.










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 o

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Cameron Cooper]

Any other ideas?  Restarted the server and the processes and still the same 
issues.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud



From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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.

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Erik Goldoff]

It explains a technical need, but does NOT explain the lack of disclosure for 
preinstalling software that could violate security standards 



Erik Goldoff
IT  Consultant
Systems, Networks, & Security 


-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Dell vendor rant!

If this is a VOIP system, it might explain why those two apps are installed... 
theoretically.



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Foxit Reader

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

On 28 Oct 2009 at 7:09, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> BTW, you can download a version from them without any ads. You just 
> have to send an email to the Sales team asking for it.

I did not know that.  

> We use it as the default PDF reader for our Terminal Services users, and 
> I recommend it for our desktop users as well. It is very fast.

Speaking of PDF readers and ads:

--- Included Stuff Follows --- 
Adobe buys Omniture and we can kiss our privacy goodbye - dslreports.com

"This news surprised most ... but the impact will be far greater than most 
people are reporting. Omniture (2o7.net) is the largest paid-analytics 
company (data miners) ... Adobe is the largest (besides it's other 
products) application (aka Flash) which allows websites to track users via 
"flash cookies" ...

Now you combine these two giants and ... say good-bye to your privacy. The 
biggest reason is the way "flash cookies" (local shared objects) are 
stored and the dubious actions that are allowed on your machine without 
your knowledge ...

Adobe, said the deal will help it "transform" e-commerce by combining its 
content creation tools with Omniture's online measurement and optimization 
technologies to help "increase the value Adobe delivers to customers."

"This is a game changer for Adobe and its customers," said Shantanu 
Narayen, chief executive of Adobe, in a statement. "We will enable 
advertisers, media companies and e-tailers to realize the full value of 
their digital assets.

- Included Stuff Ends -
More here with links:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r23063244-Adobe-buys-Omniture-and-we-can-kiss-our-privacy-goodbye
or here if the above wraps unusably: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj94qqf

Adobe to buy Omniture for $1.8 billion - Hosts News
http://msmvps.com/blogs/hostsnews/archive/2009/09/16/1724116.aspx

I use the Better Privacy add-on from Firefox to delete my Flash Cookies, and I 
also have a scheduled task that nukes them daily in case BP doesn't get them.

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
+---+




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[John Aldrich]

If this is a VOIP system, it might explain why those two apps are installed... 
theoretically.



-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:11 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

Never seen those preinstalled on any of my Dells - somebody got some splainin 
to do!
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
 Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:10:18 2009
Subject: RE: Dell vendor rant!

We got this through our phone vendor, not through a Dell rep.
We are an HP shop, so I am not really that familiar w/ Dell.
Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
installed.
Is that normal from dell?
LOL



-Original Message-
From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

Call your rep, get this cleared. If he can't handle it, ask for his
manager.

If you have a quote/PO, there's no reason the shouldn't take it back for
sending the wrong item.


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009
08:53:01 -0700
Subject: Dell vendor rant!


> So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1

> SATA drives.
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB
> drive in it.
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell

> the difference?
> ARHGHGHG
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


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.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 
09:34:00

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Erik Goldoff]

"Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap installed."

>From a security standpoint, nondisclosure of that software being
preinstalled by the vendor is an extreme violation of trust and tantamount
to installation of keystroke logging or other malware, and I'd probably find
out a way to report them ( BBB, FBI, EFF, ??? )



Erik Goldoff
IT  Consultant
Systems, Networks, & Security 


-Original Message-
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Dell vendor rant!

We got this through our phone vendor, not through a Dell rep.
We are an HP shop, so I am not really that familiar w/ Dell.
Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap installed.
Is that normal from dell?
LOL



-Original Message-
From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

Call your rep, get this cleared. If he can't handle it, ask for his manager.

If you have a quote/PO, there's no reason the shouldn't take it back for
sending the wrong item.


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009
08:53:01 -0700
Subject: Dell vendor rant!


> So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1

> SATA drives.
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it.
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell

> the difference?
> ARHGHGHG
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
>   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Cameron Cooper]

Will try rebooting and see where that leads.

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

 

Possibly do an IIS reset 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud



From: Jon Harris 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log 

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

 

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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.

 

 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[John Cook]

Possibly do an IIS reset
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud


From: Jon Harris
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:24:58 2009
Subject: Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS 
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first one.

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper 
mailto:ccoo...@aurico.com>> wrote:
Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com












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.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Jon Harris]

Have you tried restarting the server?  Follow that my going into the IIS
administration and manually starting the processes with IIS being the first
one.

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Cameron Cooper  wrote:

>  Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:
>
>
>
> Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update
>
> Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.
>
>
>
> Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update
>
> Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.
>
>
>
> Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update
>
> Description: The Client Web Service is not running.
>
>
>
> Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update
>
> Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.
>
>
>
> Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update
>
> Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.
>
>
>
> Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.
>
>
>
> Any ideas on how to resolve these?
>
>
>
> _
>
> *Cameron Cooper*
>
> *IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified*
>
> Aurico Reports, Inc
>
> Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
>
> ccoo...@aurico.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: WSUS Errors in Event Log

[John Cook]

Reboot. ;-)
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud


From: Cameron Cooper
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:23:42 2009
Subject: WSUS Errors in Event Log
Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update
Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

_
Cameron Cooper
IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified
Aurico Reports, Inc
Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896
ccoo...@aurico.com







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.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

WSUS Errors in Event Log

[Cameron Cooper]

Have been receiving the following errors in the Event Log for WSUS:

 

Event ID: 12002  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Reporting Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12032  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Server Synchronization Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12022  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The Client Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12042  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The SimpleAuth Web Service is not running.

 

Event ID: 12052  - Source: Windows Server Update

Description: The DSS Authentication Web Service is not running.

 

Running on Windows Server 2003 SP2 with IIS7.  .Net 2.0 installed.

 

Any ideas on how to resolve these?

 

_

Cameron Cooper

IT Director - CompTIA A+ Certified

Aurico Reports, Inc

Phone: 847-890-4021Fax: 847-255-1896

ccoo...@aurico.com  

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Visio licensing and Win2k TS

[Kurt Buff]

Good to know.

Thanks.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 08:19, Steve Ens  wrote:
> I have Visio on my Terminal server, just used a VL code.  Works fine.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>
>> LOL  We can do complex, you know...
>>
>> ASB
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Kurt Buff  wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, that's *far* too simple. It's just *got* to be harder than that!
>>> It must, it must...
>>>
>>> I'll try that, and see.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 18:33,   wrote:
>>> > Put all the people who need to have access into a group and set perms
>>> > on the executable.
>>> >
>>> > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>>> >
>>> > -Original Message-
>>> > From: Kurt Buff 
>>> > Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:20:55
>>> > To: NT System Admin Issues
>>> > Subject: Re: Visio licensing and Win2k TS
>>> >
>>> > So, as before, how do I limit access to Visio on the Win2k TS machine
>>> > to just a named set of people?
>>> >
>>> > Kurt
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 17:53, Webster  wrote:
>>> >> As soon as you enter the product key during install, you will be told
>>> >> the
>>> >> product is not for use on a Terminal Server and will abort.  If you
>>> >> have the
>>> >> proper product key, the install will continue on.  MSDN (do not know
>>> >> about
>>> >> Technet or MAPS) product keys now include a key for use by all Office
>>> >> products in a TS environment.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Webster
>>> >>
>>> >>> -Original Message-
>>> >>> From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@owa.smithcons.com]
>>> >>> Subject: RE: Visio licensing and Win2k TS
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Depends on what kind of license you have.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you have retail licenses, the answer is "no".
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you have open business licenses, the answer is "maybe".
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you have open value licenses with SA, the answer is "yes".
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you have select or enterprise licenses, the answer is "yes".
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Retail licenses shouldn't even install on TS.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Now, IANAL. Your best bet is to call microsoft.com/licensing, ask the
>>> >>> question, record the answer for CYA, and then do it if the answer is
>>> >>> the one you need.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> From: Kurt Buff [kurt.b...@gmail.com]
>>> >>> Subject: Visio licensing and Win2k TS
>>> >>>
>>> >>> All,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Wind2k3 domain...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We have a number of users with Visio on their laptops, and frequently
>>> >>> use it while connected to our SSL VPN, by copying the files back and
>>> >>> forth to the file server.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> They want to have it installed on our Win2k TS box, because they
>>> >>> often
>>> >>> work on the same documents, and don't want to drag the documents back
>>> >>> to the file server and overwrite what someone else has saved in the
>>> >>> interim.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I've done some cursory investigation, and can't find an answer to
>>> >>> this
>>> >>> question:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Is it feasible to install Visio on Win2k TS, and limit access to it
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> staff (and I'm willing to maintain such a list manually, but would
>>> >>> prefer to do it through a group management facility of some sort) who
>>> >>> have Visio installed on their laptops?
>>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Dell vendor rant!

[Jon Harris]

No the software was most likely a vendor addon.  This is not a Dell problem
it is your telephone vendor playing games.  Most likely they wanted to extra
money and figured you would not know the difference since you are a HP
shop.  Dell had nothing to do with this and I agree with Tim it is unfair to
take it out on them.

Jon

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:10 PM, David Mazzaccaro <
david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com> wrote:

> We got this through our phone vendor, not through a Dell rep.
> We are an HP shop, so I am not really that familiar w/ Dell.
> Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
> installed.
> Is that normal from dell?
> LOL
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!
>
> Call your rep, get this cleared. If he can't handle it, ask for his
> manager.
>
> If you have a quote/PO, there's no reason the shouldn't take it back for
> sending the wrong item.
>
>
> --Matt Ross
> Ephrata School District
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: David Mazzaccaro
> [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
> Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009
> 08:53:01 -0700
> Subject: Dell vendor rant!
>
>
> > So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
> > I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1
>
> > SATA drives.
> > The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB
> > drive in it.
> > Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell
>
> > the difference?
> > ARHGHGHG
> >
>  > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> >   ~
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[John Aldrich]

Hell, call Dell direct and gripe. If you have a Dell rep, they’ll get the 
direct side manager on the phone and he’ll ream the VAR a new a-hole! J

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:04 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

 

The question I have is would the phone vendor possibly be trying to pull a fast 
one on you. 
John W. Cook 
Systems Administrator 
Partnership For Strong Families 
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

  _  

From: David Mazzaccaro 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 11:53:01 2009
Subject: Dell vendor rant! 

So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1 SATA 
drives. 
The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB drive in it. 
Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell the 
difference? 
ARHGHGHG 

 

 

 

  _  

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.

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.36/2465 - Release Date: 10/28/09 
09:34:00


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~<><>

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Bob Fronk]

None of this has anything to do with Dell.  Your problem is your vendor.  
Anyone can buy and re-sell Dell.  

-Original Message-
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:10 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Dell vendor rant!

We got this through our phone vendor, not through a Dell rep.
We are an HP shop, so I am not really that familiar w/ Dell.
Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
installed.
Is that normal from dell?
LOL



-Original Message-
From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

Call your rep, get this cleared. If he can't handle it, ask for his
manager.

If you have a quote/PO, there's no reason the shouldn't take it back for
sending the wrong item.


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009
08:53:01 -0700
Subject: Dell vendor rant!


> So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1

> SATA drives.
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it.
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell

> the difference?
> ARHGHGHG
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
>   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Hyper-V 2008 R2

[Tim Vander Kooi]

True, it is just harder to tell for sure with a workstation (at least for me). 
In the data center where I have metered PDU's it is very easy to see immediate 
results. We are now pulling a little over 1 amp less per server with the same 
hardware (more when they are running very light loads), which translates in 
real-world numbers for us to requiring 5.5 amps where we were previously 
pulling around 40.
Of course YMMV,
Tim

-Original Message-
From: Carl Houseman [mailto:c.house...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:55 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Hyper-V 2008 R2

That same power savings was recently reported for W7 vs. Vista/XP.
Apparently MS has learned how to put the CPU cores to sleep when they're not 
needed...

Carl

-Original Message-
From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:tvanderk...@expl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:48 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Hyper-V 2008 R2

I'm using here in production for 3 virtual hosts and 12 guests. Works great 
with the Live Migration added and some updates to libraries, templates and 
such. I am finding Server 2008 R2 to require significantly less power than 
Server 2008 did on the same hardware, so we are seeing big savings in power and 
cooling costs.
Tim

-Original Message-
From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Hyper-V 2008 R2

Anybody try Hyper-V 2008 R2 yet?

I've downloaded the free .iso and installed it on a box that ended up not 
having a Virtualization compatible processor... so I need a new test box to try 
it on. Anybody have thoughts on it?


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
  ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Dell vendor rant!

[John Cook]

Never seen those preinstalled on any of my Dells - somebody got some splainin 
to do!
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
 Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud

- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Wed Oct 28 12:10:18 2009
Subject: RE: Dell vendor rant!

We got this through our phone vendor, not through a Dell rep.
We are an HP shop, so I am not really that familiar w/ Dell.
Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
installed.
Is that normal from dell?
LOL



-Original Message-
From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

Call your rep, get this cleared. If he can't handle it, ask for his
manager.

If you have a quote/PO, there's no reason the shouldn't take it back for
sending the wrong item.


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009
08:53:01 -0700
Subject: Dell vendor rant!


> So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1

> SATA drives.
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB
> drive in it.
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell

> the difference?
> ARHGHGHG
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
>   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~


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.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[N Parr]

Come on, does it really surprise you, just another day in the world of
IT.  Sharktank doesn't exist on accident, most of the population
couldn't tell the difference between two totally dissimilar pieces of
hardware.



From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:53 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Dell vendor rant!



So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1
SATA drives. 
The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB drive
in it. 
Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell
the difference? 
ARHGHGHG 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[David Mazzaccaro]

We got this through our phone vendor, not through a Dell rep.
We are an HP shop, so I am not really that familiar w/ Dell.
Another thing I did notice is that it has wireshark and winpcap
installed.
Is that normal from dell?
LOL



-Original Message-
From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:58 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Dell vendor rant!

Call your rep, get this cleared. If he can't handle it, ask for his
manager.

If you have a quote/PO, there's no reason the shouldn't take it back for
sending the wrong item.


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: David Mazzaccaro
[mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Wed, 28 Oct 2009
08:53:01 -0700
Subject: Dell vendor rant!


> So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
> I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1

> SATA drives.
> The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB 
> drive in it.
> Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell

> the difference?
> ARHGHGHG
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ 
>   ~

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
  ~


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Todd Lemmiksoo]

More likely the vendor did not include the increased cost of the
computer/server you asked for in their price quote. So you got the
minimum machine for the application. 
Could this be a Shoretel system?



From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:53 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Dell vendor rant!



So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1
SATA drives. 
The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB drive
in it. 
Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell
the difference? 
ARHGHGHG 

 

 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Tim Vander Kooi]

Putting Dell's name in the subject line seems a bit unneeded and defamatory. 
The error has nothing to do with them, it was made by the phone vendor.
IMHO,
Tim

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:53 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Dell vendor rant!


So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1 SATA 
drives.
The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB drive in it.
Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell the 
difference?
ARHGHGHG





~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Dell vendor rant!

[John Cook]

The question I have is would the phone vendor possibly be trying to pull a fast 
one on you.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud


From: David Mazzaccaro
To: NT System Admin Issues
Sent: Wed Oct 28 11:53:01 2009
Subject: Dell vendor rant!

So I am upgrading our voicemail system.
I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1 SATA 
drives.
The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB drive in it.
Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell the 
difference?
ARHGHGHG






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.

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

RE: Dell vendor rant!

[Erik Goldoff]

depends on if it's the left half, or the right half of the brain !  
 
sorry, not only wrong configuration but wrong model is inexcusable !
 

Erik Goldoff


IT  Consultant

Systems, Networks, & Security 

 

  _  

From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:53 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Dell vendor rant!



So I am upgrading our voicemail system. 
I signed a lease specifically for a Dell R5400 w/ a pair of 80GB RAID1 SATA
drives. 
The phone vendor shows up today with a Dell optiplex 760 w/ 1 80GB drive in
it. 
Ummm is it just me, or should anyone with half a brain be able to tell the
difference? 
ARHGHGHG 

 


 


~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~