RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[Brian Desmond]

You can't do this natively. Look up a third party plugin from a company called 
Ivasoft.

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

c - 312.731.3132


From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:19 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to 
send

Yes, perfectly correct.


From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to 
send

Is my analysis of your current setup correct?  Multiple addresses on the same 
AD account?
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David W. McSpadden 
mailto:dav...@imcu.com>> wrote:
I want to be able to choose.
In this case it is the Insurance department.
They have to viable addresses:
joe.u...@imcu.com
And
joe.u...@indianamembersinsurance.com
If Joe User is talking to an insurance claimant they want to send and receive 
as the insurance account
If they are just talking with us they want to use the imcu account.

Does that make sense?

Also, I have 2 more departments that I am going to swing over to my exchange in 
the next couple of weeks.
Some of my users will end up with as many as 4 smtp accounts because of their 
jobs.

Thanks


From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:04 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to 
send

I think I get it now.  You added a second SMTP address to your account, and now 
you want that to show as the sender?

Primary SMTP address = 
fred.flintst...@bedrock.com
Secondary SMTP address = mr.sl...@bedrock.com

And you want the mail to go out as Mr. Slate?
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David W. McSpadden 
mailto:dav...@imcu.com>> wrote:
I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won't that use my default SMTP??


From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to 
send

If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from the 
View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the 
properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper 
permission.

I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your problem.  
Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same user you're 
logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead of typing in the 
SMTP address you created and see if that works.

I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an Exchange 
account in Outlook I'd try this first.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden 
mailto:dav...@imcu.com>> wrote:
I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?


From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to 
send

grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and 
choosing Manage SendAs permission
On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden 
mailto:dav...@imcu.com>> wrote:
I added the following address:
dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com
to my User account in AD.
I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I 
don't have permission.  I don't understand why this is an issue?
Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??







--
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."




































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

Re: Patch Management - again

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Joseph L. Casale
 wrote:
>>       rpm --freshen /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/*
>
> That do depsolving if a package updates requires another packed to be
> updated as well?

  It will properly order installation so that dependencies are updated
first.  However, it won't install newly required packages, which does
very occasionally happen."yum update" will install newly required
packages; that's obviously a better solution.  If I had a lot of Linux
boxes, I would definitely do that.  For the past five years or so I've
been dealing with mostly 'dows with only one-off 'nix boxes, so I
haven't had need.

  I had the "update requires a new package" thing hit me once or twice
before yum came out.  I did one-off commands to handle it when it
showed up in the reports in the morning.  For example:

for server in $( < servers.txt ) ; do ssh r...@${server} rpm
--install /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/foo-1.2.3.i386.rpm ;
done

  That uses SSH (secure shell) to run the package install command on a
list of servers.

  SSH is kind of like PSEXEC but faster, works with any program, and
is safe over the public 'net.  Putting it in a for loop is an
extremely common idiom in the 'nix world.  If you have a lot of 'nix
boxes, look for pssh, which can run the commands in parallel.

-- Ben

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

RE: Patch Management - again

[Crawford, Scott]

Thanks very much for this. It's exactly the kind of info I was looking
for.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 5:26 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Crawford, Scott 
wrote:
>>  Our only non-Windows computers are running Linux, and Linux makes
>> patch management ridiculously easy.
>
> I'm sure there's countless places I could find this information, but
> could you elaborate on that statement a bit?

  Well, this is really off-topic for this list, but then, so is the
World Cup.  I'll mention a few things.  More in-depth discussion
belongs elsewhere, like the patch-management list.

  We use CentOS, so the examples I give are for that distribution.
Most other distros have similar methods.

  Most Linux distributions use a tool called a "package manager" to
install and update software.  Every software component is part of a
package.  Every program file installed on the system is owned by a
package.  The same tools are used to install, uninstall, and update
every software package on the system.  To install the Wireshark packet
sniffer:

yum install wireshark

  To update it:

yum update wireshark

  So if you don't care about bandwidth, you can just do:

yum update

and all the software gets updated.

  Now, if you have a fleet of machines and don't want to suck up your
Internet bandwidth downloading updates, you'll need some kind of local
repository of updates.  Your "patch server", so to speak.  But unlike
Microsoft, all the updates are posted to public FTP/HTTP servers, in a
plain directory structure.  So to maintain a mirror, all you need to
do is use a standard download tool.  Thus:

cd /pub/mirror/centos
wget --mirror --no-host-dir --cut-dirs=1
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/

  Now you've got a local repository with all the updates.  You can
share that out using NFS or SMB or whatever you use to share files.

  To tell a computer to update against that:

rpm --freshen /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/*

  The "freshen" command tells the package manage to install newer
packages, but only for packages which are already installed.

  I've been using this technique in various environments off-and-on
since roughly 1996 or so.  It still works, so I haven't had need to
research other methods.

  However, if you want, the tools to build the index yum needs from a
repository of files are included in the distribution.  I'm told it
would be as easy as:

yum-arch  /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/

and then editing /etc/yum.conf to look at your own server rather than
the default mirror network.

  If you want to test the integrity of the software on the system, you
can do:

rpm --verify --all

  That will check every file of every installed package.  It will
report differences in date, time, permissions, checksum, etc.  It will
also report broken dependencies.  Like most *nix commands, it's
normally silent, so silence is golden.

  Any of these commands can be put in a scheduled job to run every
night.  No special background services or poorly-documented software
is required to maintain the repository.  It's all standard commands
you use anyway.  The repository is just a directory with a bunch of
package files in it.  There's no need to run a special web server, or
to have a database backend; there's no special download protocol.  The
update packages are just like regular packages; there's no cryptic
format or special installers.

  There's a package called "yum-cron"; if you install it, it will
email you a report every night if there are pending updates to
install.  I use a mail filter to route those messages to a mail
folder.  If it's empty, all is well.  Things needing attention show up
as new mail.  That's all I've ever needed or wanted for reporting.

  I've had people ask about things like pie charts.  I honestly don't
see how pie charts help patch management, but if you want that sort of
thing, Red Hat sells a fancy GUI thing called "Red Hat Network".  You
get a year if you buy their commercial packaged distro.

-- Ben

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

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

RE: Patch Management - again

[Joseph L. Casale]

>  To tell a computer to update against that:
>
>   rpm --freshen /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/*

That do depsolving if a package updates requires another packed to be
updated as well?

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

Re: Patch Management - again

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Crawford, Scott  wrote:
>>  Our only non-Windows computers are running Linux, and Linux makes
>> patch management ridiculously easy.
>
> I'm sure there's countless places I could find this information, but
> could you elaborate on that statement a bit?

  Well, this is really off-topic for this list, but then, so is the
World Cup.  I'll mention a few things.  More in-depth discussion
belongs elsewhere, like the patch-management list.

  We use CentOS, so the examples I give are for that distribution.
Most other distros have similar methods.

  Most Linux distributions use a tool called a "package manager" to
install and update software.  Every software component is part of a
package.  Every program file installed on the system is owned by a
package.  The same tools are used to install, uninstall, and update
every software package on the system.  To install the Wireshark packet
sniffer:

yum install wireshark

  To update it:

yum update wireshark

  So if you don't care about bandwidth, you can just do:

yum update

and all the software gets updated.

  Now, if you have a fleet of machines and don't want to suck up your
Internet bandwidth downloading updates, you'll need some kind of local
repository of updates.  Your "patch server", so to speak.  But unlike
Microsoft, all the updates are posted to public FTP/HTTP servers, in a
plain directory structure.  So to maintain a mirror, all you need to
do is use a standard download tool.  Thus:

cd /pub/mirror/centos
wget --mirror --no-host-dir --cut-dirs=1
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/

  Now you've got a local repository with all the updates.  You can
share that out using NFS or SMB or whatever you use to share files.

  To tell a computer to update against that:

rpm --freshen /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/*

  The "freshen" command tells the package manage to install newer
packages, but only for packages which are already installed.

  I've been using this technique in various environments off-and-on
since roughly 1996 or so.  It still works, so I haven't had need to
research other methods.

  However, if you want, the tools to build the index yum needs from a
repository of files are included in the distribution.  I'm told it
would be as easy as:

yum-arch  /pub/mirror/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/

and then editing /etc/yum.conf to look at your own server rather than
the default mirror network.

  If you want to test the integrity of the software on the system, you can do:

rpm --verify --all

  That will check every file of every installed package.  It will
report differences in date, time, permissions, checksum, etc.  It will
also report broken dependencies.  Like most *nix commands, it's
normally silent, so silence is golden.

  Any of these commands can be put in a scheduled job to run every
night.  No special background services or poorly-documented software
is required to maintain the repository.  It's all standard commands
you use anyway.  The repository is just a directory with a bunch of
package files in it.  There's no need to run a special web server, or
to have a database backend; there's no special download protocol.  The
update packages are just like regular packages; there's no cryptic
format or special installers.

  There's a package called "yum-cron"; if you install it, it will
email you a report every night if there are pending updates to
install.  I use a mail filter to route those messages to a mail
folder.  If it's empty, all is well.  Things needing attention show up
as new mail.  That's all I've ever needed or wanted for reporting.

  I've had people ask about things like pie charts.  I honestly don't
see how pie charts help patch management, but if you want that sort of
thing, Red Hat sells a fancy GUI thing called "Red Hat Network".  You
get a year if you buy their commercial packaged distro.

-- Ben

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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Jonathan Link]

Or maybe just his password.



On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:28 AM, MarvinC  wrote ...
>
>  Someone hack into MarvinC's computer and change his desktop color
> scheme to angry fruit salad.  Change is good.  ;-)
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>

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

RE: Patch Management - again

[Crawford, Scott]

I'm sure there's countless places I could find this information, but
could you elaborate on that statement a bit?

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 4:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Alex Eckelberry
 wrote:
> What do you do about non-Windows patching?

  Our only non-Windows computers are running Linux, and Linux makes
patch management ridiculously easy.

-- Ben

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

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

Re: Patch Management - again

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Alex Eckelberry
 wrote:
> What do you do about non-Windows patching?

  Our only non-Windows computers are running Linux, and Linux makes
patch management ridiculously easy.

-- Ben

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

Re: Expand an array that contains the system partition?

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:
> I assume this is how most arrays are configured???  1 logical drive per
> array?

  I don't know about "most", but that's certainly the way I would do
it, and what I would recommend.

  I can't think of any realistic benefit to creating multiple "logical
drives" per "array" vs just using partitions.  (And you already know
what the downside is. :)  )

-- Ben

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

RE: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!

[Bob Hartung]

I'm using the Enterprise Ed. v5.5.15.0., single-administrator, lifetime 
subscription. Their website shows this would cost $309. I think it's worth it.

In addition to our Main location, I access a remote facility on the other side 
of town via a wireless bridge. We have another facility in another state that I 
access via a VPN.

Good luck.

--

Bob Hartung
Wisco Industries, Inc.
736 Janesville St.
Oregon, WI 53575
Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
Fax: (608) 835-7399
e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com
  _  

From: Edward Fehling [mailto:efehl...@rsic.org]
To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:51:12 -0500
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!




Bob,

 

Can you tell me which version of Smartcode  VNC you’re using (standard, 
enterprise, etc.)

I have about 200 workstations spread  across multiple sites that I would like   
 

to access remotely. I would like to  accomplish this without investing a 
fortune, if possible.

 

 


Edward Fehling-IT  Specialist

Planning Department/ANA  Project

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony

(775) 857-7883

 

 

  _  



From: Bob Hartung  [mailto:bhart...@wiscoind.com] 
  Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:18  AM
  To: NT System Admin Issues
  Subject: Re: Remote Desktop  Client... Something I like!

 

I've been using it for about 4  years now and it's a very useful tool. In 
addition to being able to access  multiple PCs simultaneously using VNC, RDP 
and Citrix ICA, it comes with a  number of remote management utilities like 
remote booting, wake-on-lan, remote  registry editor and quite a few others.
  
  I use it to access about 130 PCs and servers in 3 locations.


  --
  
  Bob Hartung
  Wisco Industries, Inc.
  736 Janesville St.
  Oregon, WI  53575
  Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
  Fax: (608) 835-7399
  e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com
  _  



From: Matthew  W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
  To: NT System Admin Issues  [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
  Sent: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:11:14  -0500
  Subject: Remote Desktop Client...  Something I like!
  
  Not too long ago I asked if this list knew of any good remote support apps. I 
 just wanted to chime in with one I think fits the bill, and maybe find out if  
anybody else here is using it:
  
  SmartCode VNC Manager
  
  I'm evaluating the Enterprise Edition, and it seems to do everything I want 
it  to do.
  
  
  --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! ~
~   ~

RE: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!

[Edward Fehling]

Bob,

 

Can you tell me which version of Smartcode VNC you're using (standard,
enterprise, etc.)

I have about 200 workstations spread across multiple sites that I would
like

to access remotely. I would like to accomplish this without investing a
fortune, if possible.

 

 

Edward Fehling-IT Specialist

Planning Department/ANA Project

Reno-Sparks Indian Colony

(775) 857-7883

 

 



From: Bob Hartung [mailto:bhart...@wiscoind.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 6:18 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!

 

I've been using it for about 4 years now and it's a very useful tool. In
addition to being able to access multiple PCs simultaneously using VNC,
RDP and Citrix ICA, it comes with a number of remote management
utilities like remote booting, wake-on-lan, remote registry editor and
quite a few others.

I use it to access about 130 PCs and servers in 3 locations.


--

Bob Hartung
Wisco Industries, Inc.
736 Janesville St.
Oregon, WI 53575
Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
Fax: (608) 835-7399
e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com



From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:11:14 -0500
Subject: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!

Not too long ago I asked if this list knew of any good remote support
apps. I just wanted to chime in with one I think fits the bill, and
maybe find out if anybody else here is using it:

SmartCode VNC Manager

I'm evaluating the Enterprise Edition, and it seems to do everything I
want it to do.


--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! ~
~   ~

Re: Patch Management - again

[James Kerr]

suffer

- Original Message - 
From: "Alex Eckelberry" 

To: "NT System Admin Issues" 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:59 PM
Subject: RE: Patch Management - again



 WSUS.


What do you do about non-Windows patching?

Alex


-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:

What are you guys using for automating patch management for your servers?


 WSUS.

-- Ben

~ 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: OT - June 12th

[Roger Wright]

I just got a new bike a couple weeks ago, but my wife has me painting
a couple rooms this weekend so I won't get to ride.  Not sure this
type of event appeals to me, though.  


Die dulci fruere!

Roger Wright
___




On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Steve Ens  wrote:
> My bike has a spare tire.  Or is that me?
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Roger Wright  wrote:
>>
>> Plan to Participate?
>>
>> http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org
>>
>>
>> Die dulci fruere!
>>
>> Roger Wright
>> ___

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

Re: OT - June 12th

[Steve Ens]

My bike has a spare tire.  Or is that me?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Roger Wright  wrote:

> Plan to Participate?
>
> http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org
>
>
> Die dulci fruere!
>
> Roger Wright
> ___
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>

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

RE: Patch Management - again

[Alex Eckelberry]

>  WSUS.

What do you do about non-Windows patching? 

Alex


-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:30 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Joseph Heaton  wrote:
> What are you guys using for automating patch management for your servers?

  WSUS.

-- Ben

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

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

Re: Slightly OT- Exam Room Notebooks

[Daniel Rodriguez]

About a year and a half ago, I was servicing a clinic and we got the Tablet
PC's. I think they were an HP unit, can't remember the model number, but
they had docking stations that they could plug into and use as displays.

When they were considering either laptops or tablets, we found that the
tablets batteries lasted much longer during the day. There were five doctors
and we got seven tablets. That way, they at lest had a unit that was
available for them to us.

That may be overkill, but it is better to have something they can use than
nothing at all.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM, James Kerr  wrote:

> I'm looking to buy some notebooks for three doctors that will be moving
> from exam room to exam room but have an issue I'm trying to figure out. The
> issue is the batteries in the notebooks and how to keep the charged
> throughout the day. I've thought about putting docking stations in each exam
> room or just buying power adapters and have one plugged in each room but I
> figure that jack in the notebook would probably get screwed up pretty fast.
> What are you guys in similar scenarios doing. Also, whats a good notebook
> that isnt heavy and can stand up to have the screen opened and closed
> frequently?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>

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

Slightly OT- Exam Room Notebooks

[James Kerr]

I'm looking to buy some notebooks for three doctors that will be moving from 
exam room to exam room but have an issue I'm trying to figure out. The issue 
is the batteries in the notebooks and how to keep the charged throughout the 
day. I've thought about putting docking stations in each exam room or just 
buying power adapters and have one plugged in each room but I figure that 
jack in the notebook would probably get screwed up pretty fast. What are you 
guys in similar scenarios doing. Also, whats a good notebook that isnt heavy 
and can stand up to have the screen opened and closed frequently?


Thanks,

James 



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

OT - June 12th

[Roger Wright]

Plan to Participate?

http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org


Die dulci fruere!

Roger Wright
___

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

RE: Expand an array that contains the system partition?

[David Mazzaccaro]

Thanks!
I'll certainly look into your suggestions.

I may just end up getting an additional server, building that array to
host a single logical drive. 
I assume this is how most arrays are configured???  1 logical drive per
array?



-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:13 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Expand an array that contains the system partition?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:
> (In Disk Management, they are seen as DISK0 and Disk1)

  It sounds like the RAID controller is presenting your two "logical
drives" to the OS/software as if they were separate physical disks.
No software tool (like Partition Manager) is going to be able to resize
what your RAID controller is doing.  Additionally, most RAID controllers
don't allow you to "shrink" their "logical disks".  So you can't easily
take storage from E: and give it to C:.

  You *might* be able to backup E: to other media, nuke E: and the RAID
logical disk holding it, and then expand the logical disk holding
C: to use the space formerly used by the logical disk holding E:,
recreate the E: partition, and then restore.  Whether or not this would
work will depend on what the RAID controller can do.

> HP is telling me no - because you cannot expand an array that contains

> a Windows system partition.

  That sounds like an artificial limitation.  RAID controllers work at
the block device level, and shouldn't know or care about things like
partitions, filesystems, and OSes.

  Do they have OS-independent RAID management tools in firmware (BIOS)?
If so, can you can use that to non-destructively grow the RAID logical
disk holding the C: partition?  If so, you should be able to do *that*,
and then use Partition Manager to actually resize the filesystem to fill
the now-bigger "disk".

  Or if they have RAID management software for Linux, boot Linux and use
that to resize RAID "logical disk".

-- Ben

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

.

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

RE: Google and stupid background pictures

[Don Guyer]

Of course, no surprise there!

It's because of pr0n that the internet is what it is today.

Don Guyer
Systems Engineer - Information Services
Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group
431 W. Lancaster Avenue
Devon, PA 19333
Direct: (610) 993-3299
Fax: (610) 650-5306
don.gu...@prufoxroach.com


-Original Message-
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:34 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Google and stupid background pictures

Just for giggles, type "average" in the search on Google and Bing and
see what auto-complete comes up with on each.  Case closed...  :-)

-Original Message-
From: S Powell [mailto:powe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Google and stupid background pictures

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:59, Rod Trent  wrote:
> Also, bing gives cleaner results. Google needs to go back and figure
out how to sanitize their searches.
>
> From a purely "dad" perspective - bing is more family friendly. I have
4 kids to protect and google is more concerned with ad revenue than
safety.



OH I know just the other day I wanted to know how well this new
latex paint would bond to the stucco on my house, so I googled for
Latex Bondage.

:)


Google.com  Learn it. Live it. Love it.

~ 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: Expand an array that contains the system partition?

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM, David Mazzaccaro
 wrote:
> (In Disk Management, they are seen as DISK0 and Disk1)

  It sounds like the RAID controller is presenting your two "logical
drives" to the OS/software as if they were separate physical disks.
No software tool (like Partition Manager) is going to be able to
resize what your RAID controller is doing.  Additionally, most RAID
controllers don't allow you to "shrink" their "logical disks".  So you
can't easily take storage from E: and give it to C:.

  You *might* be able to backup E: to other media, nuke E: and the
RAID logical disk holding it, and then expand the logical disk holding
C: to use the space formerly used by the logical disk holding E:,
recreate the E: partition, and then restore.  Whether or not this
would work will depend on what the RAID controller can do.

> HP is telling me no - because you cannot expand an array
> that contains a Windows system partition.

  That sounds like an artificial limitation.  RAID controllers work at
the block device level, and shouldn't know or care about things like
partitions, filesystems, and OSes.

  Do they have OS-independent RAID management tools in firmware
(BIOS)?  If so, can you can use that to non-destructively grow the
RAID logical disk holding the C: partition?  If so, you should be able
to do *that*, and then use Partition Manager to actually resize the
filesystem to fill the now-bigger "disk".

  Or if they have RAID management software for Linux, boot Linux and
use that to resize RAID "logical disk".

-- Ben

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

RE: Google and stupid background pictures

[Maglinger, Paul]

Just for giggles, type "average" in the search on Google and Bing and
see what auto-complete comes up with on each.  Case closed...  :-)

-Original Message-
From: S Powell [mailto:powe...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:07 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Google and stupid background pictures

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:59, Rod Trent  wrote:
> Also, bing gives cleaner results. Google needs to go back and figure
out how to sanitize their searches.
>
> From a purely "dad" perspective - bing is more family friendly. I have
4 kids to protect and google is more concerned with ad revenue than
safety.



OH I know just the other day I wanted to know how well this new
latex paint would bond to the stucco on my house, so I googled for
Latex Bondage.

:)


Google.com  Learn it. Live it. Love it.

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

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

NetIQ's AppManger?

[Ryan Finnesey]

Is anyone on the list using NetIQ's AppManger?  I was wondering how the
latest version on AppManager compares to System Center.

 

Cheers

Ryan

 


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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:55 PM, James Kerr  wrote:
> Meh, bring back HotBot.

  WebCrawler!

-- Ben

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

Re: VMware shops - Just a question

[Steven Peck]

Whomever needs it.

Engineers have read/view access to most and reboot ability to everything.
Others have access to the servers they specifically need.

VMware admins own everythign.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Damien Solodow
 wrote:
> It depends.
>
> If you’re connecting directly to the ESX host, it’s just root.
>
> If you’re connecting to vCenter, it’s anyone who is a member of the
> Administrators group on the vCenter server.
>
>
>
> From: Craig Gauss [mailto:gau...@rhahealthcare.org]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:09 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: VMware shops - Just a question
>
>
>
> Who is allowed access to the VI or vSphere client?
>
>
>
> Craig Gauss,  Technical Supervisor/Security Officer
> Riverview Hospital Association
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[S Powell]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 09:59, Rod Trent  wrote:
> Also, bing gives cleaner results. Google needs to go back and figure out how 
> to sanitize their searches.
>
> From a purely "dad" perspective - bing is more family friendly. I have 4 kids 
> to protect and google is more concerned with ad revenue than safety.



OH I know just the other day I wanted to know how well this new
latex paint would bond to the stucco on my house, so I googled for
Latex Bondage.

:)


Google.com  Learn it. Live it. Love it.

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

RE: Google and stupid background pictures

[Rod Trent]

Also, bing gives cleaner results. Google needs to go back and figure out how to 
sanitize their searches.

>From a purely "dad" perspective - bing is more family friendly. I have 4 kids 
>to protect and google is more concerned with ad revenue than safety.

"Michael B. Smith"  wrote:

>EXCEPT when I'm searching Microsoft itself (and yes, I definitely see the 
>irony) I find bing works best for me. It's a button in my browser - I never 
>see the graphics.
>
>But when searching Microsoft.com - google FTW! :-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael B. Smith
>Consultant and Exchange MVP
>http://TheEssentialExchange.com
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
>Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:42 PM
>To: NT System Admin Issues
>Subject: Re: Google and stupid background pictures
>
>I switched to bing a while ago.  I find it suits my needs and searches better. 
> I also find that the bing crew puts a lot of thought into the layout and 
>placement of the picture.  The ones Google offered me yesterday (while nice 
>pictures) were pretty much random crap whose layout had no thought to where 
>the rest of the design elements of the page ended up in relationship to the 
>picture elements.  Name / search box split by contrasting colors etc.
>
>Also, PowerShell for the win!
>
>On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr 
> wrote:
>> I don't think it could be summarized any better than that.  Granted we 
>> aren't the general public, but we are essentially the [type] of people 
>> that put AltaVista and then Google on the map.
>>
>> When I am looking for something, the last thing I want is 
>> distractions.  It should be simple, easy, and preferably quick. Adding 
>> noise to this occasion could very well be an option for some, but it 
>> should not be a default for all.
>>
>> I test and compare search engines about once a month.  Visual noise 
>> and irrelevant "related searches" are huge points that keep me from using 
>> Bing.
>> Plus, I IMNSHO, I still think that Google results are in a more 
>> relevant order.  That may change, which is why I occasional do comparison 
>> testing.
>>
>> --
>> ME2
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>>
>>> Search is all about speed.  That's what made AltaVista awesome, and 
>>> what largely propelled Google to its current heights.
>>> I have no time for scenery while I'm searching.  Employing strategies 
>>> that undermine ones primary objective is useless.
>>> Let's hope they make the "feature" optional.
>>> -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, MarvinC  wrote:

 Always odd to hear the very people who should be pushing for change 
 complain when they're presented. If no one thought to deploy or 
 implement new strategies things would stay the same. Hint this stale white 
 background.
 Other than the complacent minded, who wants that? Why not add some 
 variety and creativity to the search process? The beauty is having 
 the ability to change the background to one of your liking. The kewl 
 thing is that 10 - 16 year old kids who use Google more than Bing 
 for searches are excited by the changes. So I hope Google keeps this 
 feature and continue to build on it.
 The rest of us "old cranky" techheads should chill out.


 On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr 
  wrote:
>
> LOL!
>
> --
> ME2
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ben Scott 
> wrote:
>>
>> The last part might as well read, "After getting complaints from 
>> approximately the entire planet, we realized we had screwed the 
>> pooch big time".
>
>
>
>




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

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[James Kerr]

Meh, bring back HotBot.
  - Original Message - 
  From: Micheal Espinola Jr 
  To: NT System Admin Issues 
  Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:14 PM
  Subject: Re: Google and stupid background pictures


  I don't think it could be summarized any better than that.  Granted we aren't 
the general public, but we are essentially the [type] of people that put 
AltaVista and then Google on the map.

  When I am looking for something, the last thing I want is distractions.  It 
should be simple, easy, and preferably quick. Adding noise to this occasion 
could very well be an option for some, but it should not be a default for all.

  I test and compare search engines about once a month.  Visual noise and 
irrelevant "related searches" are huge points that keep me from using Bing.  
Plus, I IMNSHO, I still think that Google results are in a more relevant order. 
 That may change, which is why I occasional do comparison testing.

  --
  ME2



  On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

Search is all about speed.  That's what made AltaVista awesome, and what 
largely propelled Google to its current heights. 


I have no time for scenery while I'm searching.  Employing strategies that 
undermine ones primary objective is useless.


Let's hope they make the "feature" optional.

-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker



On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, MarvinC  wrote:

  Always odd to hear the very people who should be pushing for change 
complain when they're presented. If no one thought to deploy or implement new 
strategies things would stay the same. Hint this stale white background. Other 
than the complacent minded, who wants that? Why not add some variety and 
creativity to the search process? The beauty is having the ability to change 
the background to one of your liking. The kewl thing is that 10 - 16 year old 
kids who use Google more than Bing for searches are excited by the changes. So 
I hope Google keeps this feature and continue to build on it. The rest of us 
"old cranky" techheads should chill out.


   
  On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr 
 wrote:

LOL!

--
ME2 




On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ben Scott  
wrote:

  The last part might as well read, "After getting complaints from
  approximately the entire planet, we realized we had screwed the pooch
  big time".





 






 





 






 

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

RE: Google and stupid background pictures

[Michael B. Smith]

EXCEPT when I'm searching Microsoft itself (and yes, I definitely see the 
irony) I find bing works best for me. It's a button in my browser - I never see 
the graphics.

But when searching Microsoft.com - google FTW! :-)

Regards,

Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com


-Original Message-
From: Steven Peck [mailto:sep...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:42 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Google and stupid background pictures

I switched to bing a while ago.  I find it suits my needs and searches better.  
I also find that the bing crew puts a lot of thought into the layout and 
placement of the picture.  The ones Google offered me yesterday (while nice 
pictures) were pretty much random crap whose layout had no thought to where the 
rest of the design elements of the page ended up in relationship to the picture 
elements.  Name / search box split by contrasting colors etc.

Also, PowerShell for the win!

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr 
 wrote:
> I don't think it could be summarized any better than that.  Granted we 
> aren't the general public, but we are essentially the [type] of people 
> that put AltaVista and then Google on the map.
>
> When I am looking for something, the last thing I want is 
> distractions.  It should be simple, easy, and preferably quick. Adding 
> noise to this occasion could very well be an option for some, but it 
> should not be a default for all.
>
> I test and compare search engines about once a month.  Visual noise 
> and irrelevant "related searches" are huge points that keep me from using 
> Bing.
> Plus, I IMNSHO, I still think that Google results are in a more 
> relevant order.  That may change, which is why I occasional do comparison 
> testing.
>
> --
> ME2
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>
>> Search is all about speed.  That's what made AltaVista awesome, and 
>> what largely propelled Google to its current heights.
>> I have no time for scenery while I'm searching.  Employing strategies 
>> that undermine ones primary objective is useless.
>> Let's hope they make the "feature" optional.
>> -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
>>>
>>> Always odd to hear the very people who should be pushing for change 
>>> complain when they're presented. If no one thought to deploy or 
>>> implement new strategies things would stay the same. Hint this stale white 
>>> background.
>>> Other than the complacent minded, who wants that? Why not add some 
>>> variety and creativity to the search process? The beauty is having 
>>> the ability to change the background to one of your liking. The kewl 
>>> thing is that 10 - 16 year old kids who use Google more than Bing 
>>> for searches are excited by the changes. So I hope Google keeps this 
>>> feature and continue to build on it.
>>> The rest of us "old cranky" techheads should chill out.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr 
>>>  wrote:

 LOL!

 --
 ME2


 On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ben Scott 
 wrote:
>
> The last part might as well read, "After getting complaints from 
> approximately the entire planet, we realized we had screwed the 
> pooch big time".




>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

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


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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Steven Peck]

I switched to bing a while ago.  I find it suits my needs and searches
better.  I also find that the bing crew puts a lot of thought into the
layout and placement of the picture.  The ones Google offered me
yesterday (while nice pictures) were pretty much random crap whose
layout had no thought to where the rest of the design elements of the
page ended up in relationship to the picture elements.  Name / search
box split by contrasting colors etc.

Also, PowerShell for the win!

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr
 wrote:
> I don't think it could be summarized any better than that.  Granted we
> aren't the general public, but we are essentially the [type] of people that
> put AltaVista and then Google on the map.
>
> When I am looking for something, the last thing I want is distractions.  It
> should be simple, easy, and preferably quick. Adding noise to this occasion
> could very well be an option for some, but it should not be a default for
> all.
>
> I test and compare search engines about once a month.  Visual noise and
> irrelevant "related searches" are huge points that keep me from using Bing.
> Plus, I IMNSHO, I still think that Google results are in a more relevant
> order.  That may change, which is why I occasional do comparison testing.
>
> --
> ME2
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:
>>
>> Search is all about speed.  That's what made AltaVista awesome, and what
>> largely propelled Google to its current heights.
>> I have no time for scenery while I'm searching.  Employing strategies that
>> undermine ones primary objective is useless.
>> Let's hope they make the "feature" optional.
>> -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
>>>
>>> Always odd to hear the very people who should be pushing for change
>>> complain when they're presented. If no one thought to deploy or implement
>>> new strategies things would stay the same. Hint this stale white background.
>>> Other than the complacent minded, who wants that? Why not add some variety
>>> and creativity to the search process? The beauty is having the ability to
>>> change the background to one of your liking. The kewl thing is that 10 - 16
>>> year old kids who use Google more than Bing for searches are excited by the
>>> changes. So I hope Google keeps this feature and continue to build on it.
>>> The rest of us "old cranky" techheads should chill out.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr
>>>  wrote:

 LOL!

 --
 ME2


 On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ben Scott 
 wrote:
>
> The last part might as well read, "After getting complaints from
> approximately the entire planet, we realized we had screwed the pooch
> big time".




>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

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

R: Expand an array that contains the system partition?

[HELP_PC]

Image the 2 partition , put 3 bigger hds and restore as needed (I use 
StorageCraft for this)
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] 
Inviato: venerdì 11 giugno 2010 17.51
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: Expand an array that contains the system partition?



Hello everyone! 

I have a Hewlett Packard P600 array controller in a DL360 G4 server. 
There are (3) 72GB SAS hard drives installed in the server. 

The array is as follows: 
A single 72 GB RAID1+0 Mirror with 1 drive configured as a hot spare. 
BUT The array was originally configured with (2) Logical drives! 
(12GB for C: and 56GB for E:) 
I guess the original thinking was that 12GB would be plenty for Windows Server 
2003.  And that the 56GB would be plenty for apps.

Of course, it has proven not to be.  56GB is fine.  I'm only using about 15GB 
for apps. 

Do I have any options for taking some of that 56GB from E: and giving it to C:? 

* Partition Manager is telling me no - because they are 2 separate logical 
drives.  (In Disk Management, they are seen as DISK0 and Disk1) 

* HP is telling me no - because you cannot expand an array that contains a 
Windows system partition. 

Anyone have any suggestions? 
TIA! 


.


 


 


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[RichardMcClary]

"A" free app?  I got curious and looked.  There are at least 4 by now...

John Cook  wrote on 06/11/2010 11:14:22 AM:

> And BTW I just came across a free Blackberry app on BB world that 
> covers the WC.
> John W. Cook
> Systems Administrator
> Partnership for Strong Families
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: Rubens Almeida 
> To: NT System Admin Issues 
> Sent: Fri Jun 11 11:52:41 2010
> Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup
> 
> Sorry again, but the greatest F1 driver was Ayrton Senna (from
> Brazil). Then the others like Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Michael
> Schumacher!
> 
> ~ 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! ~
> ~   ~
> 

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[E. Peeters]

Senna was an excellent driver, top class, no doubt about it, but too
dependent on his engineers. Now, Prost, that was a real F1 pilot. He
could drive the car, and talk turkey with the guys building the car,
sometimes to their dismay when they tried to favor Senna and Prost was
smart enough to know his car wasn't tuned as well as it could be.

Eric
(not French but speaking the language like a native, and invited by a
bunch of Hispanics in Dallas to a Mexico - France watch party next
week... What are the odds I'd survive that?!?) 

-Original Message-
From: Rubens Almeida [mailto:rubensalme...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:53
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

Sorry again, but the greatest F1 driver was Ayrton Senna (from
Brazil). Then the others like Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Michael
Schumacher!

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

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

RE: Vipre sample submission question

[David Mazzaccaro]

Yup... got confirmation emails.  2 for 2.
 



From: John Leto [mailto:jo...@colonialsavings.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 12:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Vipre sample submission question



Hey all,

 

I was wondering for all of you Vipre users out there when you submit a
possible malware sample to Sunbelt do you ever receive a response back
on the submission?
I receive a notification e-mail that they received the sample but never
anything confirming or recognition if the samples submitted are malware
or not. 

 

Again just curious as to what other Vipre users experiences are with
their sample submissions. Thanks. 

 

John Leto

Network Engineer

Colonial Savings, F.A.

817-877-9578

jo...@colonialsavings.com

 

 

 


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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

I don't think it could be summarized any better than that.  Granted we
aren't the general public, but we are essentially the [type] of people that
put AltaVista and then Google on the map.

When I am looking for something, the last thing I want is distractions.  It
should be simple, easy, and preferably quick. Adding noise to this occasion
could very well be an option for some, but it should not be a default for
all.

I test and compare search engines about once a month.  Visual noise and
irrelevant "related searches" are huge points that keep me from using Bing.
Plus, I IMNSHO, I still think that Google results are in a more relevant
order.  That may change, which is why I occasional do comparison testing.

--
ME2


On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> Search is all about speed.  That's what made AltaVista awesome, and what
> largely propelled Google to its current heights.
>
> I have no time for scenery while I'm searching.  Employing strategies that
> undermine ones primary objective is useless.
>
> Let's hope they make the "feature" optional.
>
> -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker 
>
>
>  On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
>
>> Always odd to hear the very people who should be pushing for change
>> complain when they're presented. If no one thought to deploy or implement
>> new strategies things would stay the same. Hint this stale white background.
>> Other than the complacent minded, who wants that? Why not add some variety
>> and creativity to the search process? The beauty is having the ability to
>> change the background to one of your liking. The kewl thing is that 10 - 16
>> year old kids who use Google more than Bing for searches are excited by the
>> changes. So I hope Google keeps this feature and continue to build on it.
>> The rest of us "old cranky" techheads should chill out.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr <
>> michealespin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> --
>>> ME2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ben Scott wrote:
>>>
 The last part might as well read, "After getting complaints from
 approximately the entire planet, we realized we had screwed the pooch
 big time".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[John Cook]

And BTW I just came across a free Blackberry app on BB world that covers the WC.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families

- Original Message -
From: Rubens Almeida 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Fri Jun 11 11:52:41 2010
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

Sorry again, but the greatest F1 driver was Ayrton Senna (from
Brazil). Then the others like Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Michael
Schumacher!

~ 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! ~
~   ~

Vipre sample submission question

[John Leto]

Hey all,

 

I was wondering for all of you Vipre users out there when you submit a
possible malware sample to Sunbelt do you ever receive a response back
on the submission?
I receive a notification e-mail that they received the sample but never
anything confirming or recognition if the samples submitted are malware
or not. 

 

Again just curious as to what other Vipre users experiences are with
their sample submissions. Thanks. 

 

John Leto

Network Engineer

Colonial Savings, F.A.

817-877-9578

jo...@colonialsavings.com

 


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[John Cook]

I rank AS and AP pretty equal, each were the best in specific areas. Prost was 
the best at saving his car, Senna ruled in the wet. Senna was very much like 
Dale Earnhardt, a balls to the wall get outta my way driver that took out more 
than his share of other drivers on his way to the front. Schumacher was a 
victim in his rookie year. Schui still has the numbers.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families

- Original Message -
From: Rubens Almeida 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Fri Jun 11 11:52:41 2010
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

Sorry again, but the greatest F1 driver was Ayrton Senna (from
Brazil). Then the others like Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Michael
Schumacher!

~ 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! ~
~   ~

OT: vmview 4 questions

[Eldridge, Dave]

Sorry to distract from the WC but anyone out there willing to answer
some questions on pc deployment using composer?

Offline is fine.

Thanks

dave

 

 

 




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: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Rubens Almeida]

Sorry again, but the greatest F1 driver was Ayrton Senna (from
Brazil). Then the others like Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Michael
Schumacher!

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

Expand an array that contains the system partition?

[David Mazzaccaro]

Hello everyone!

I have a Hewlett Packard P600 array controller in a DL360 G4 server.
There are (3) 72GB SAS hard drives installed in the server.

The array is as follows: 
A single 72 GB RAID1+0 Mirror with 1 drive configured as a hot spare.
BUT The array was originally configured with (2) Logical drives! 
(12GB for C: and 56GB for E:)
I guess the original thinking was that 12GB would be plenty for Windows
Server 2003.  And that the 56GB would be plenty for apps.

Of course, it has proven not to be.  56GB is fine.  I'm only using about
15GB for apps.

Do I have any options for taking some of that 56GB from E: and giving it
to C:?

* Partition Manager is telling me no - because they are 2 separate
logical drives.  (In Disk Management, they are seen as DISK0 and Disk1) 

* HP is telling me no - because you cannot expand an array that contains
a Windows system partition.

Anyone have any suggestions?
TIA!


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[S Powell]

WOW... this thread is  just wow... this is what I get for living
on the west coast of the usa...

now, to correct the record, some of is in the USA do call it football
rather than soccer, and are mocked for it.

Schumi is the greatest driver ever.  but I still root against him.
(go Button!  gotta favor the F-duct in Canada this weekend)

 ... and I _so_ hope that we beat England 2-0.  THAT would make my week.

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

RE: OT : Friday funny

[Matthew Bullock]

Did you hear about the new car that runs on water only?  The problem is that it 
only runs on water from the Gulf of Mexico.


-matt

-Original Message-
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: OT : Friday funny

Breaking news - The Gulf oil spill crisis is over.  BP put a wedding ring over 
the pipe and it immediately stopped putting out.

 
-Paul 

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


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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Alan Davies]

Sorry, yes, that's true .. the goalie could bugger off, in which case, a
second defender would need to be present to count!
 
There are assistance referees (what we used to call linesmen!) to look
out for such things.  In a sane world, they would allow video rulings on
such events as per almost any other sport with such contention over
decisions like these!



From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 16:32
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup



Timing is everything! 

There must be two defenders (one of which may be the goal keeper)
between the player and the goal line at the very moment the pass is
made.  On a field as large as a football pitch, the officials all need
sets of eyes going in multiple directions. 

It's hard enough in ice hockey (where it is simply two static lines)... 

Steve Ens  wrote on 06/11/2010 10:16:52 AM:

> Whooo!!!  

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Eric Brouwer 
wrote: 
> From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly limited, 
> there must be two defenders behind the offensive player.  I only saw
> one defender on the goal line between the ball and the net.  The 
> goal keeper was near the top of the box to my eye. 
> 
> Any experts care to chime in? 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Don Ely wrote: 
> 
> He wasn't offside...  Bad call...

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens 
wrote: 
> Offside - Mexico goal will not stand. 
> 

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott 
wrote: 
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr 
wrote:
> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.

>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto. 
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~

> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
>   
> 
> 
> Eric Brouwer 
> IT Manager 
> www.forestpost.com 
> er...@forestpost.com 
> 248.855.4333 
> 
> 

> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
>   

 

 



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Rubens Almeida]

Sorry to ruin the party but, Brazil is going to kick a** on this FIFA
World Cup, even with that big knuckle head coach leaving behind two
great players!
I think It'll be nice to celebrate victory for the sixth time! :)
Go Brazil, go!

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

OT : Friday funny

[Maglinger, Paul]

Breaking news - The Gulf oil spill crisis is over.  BP put a wedding ring over 
the pipe and it immediately stopped putting out.

 
-Paul 

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[James Winzenz]

That's correct, but one of the defenders can include the goalkeeper.

Thanks,
 
James Winzenz



 


From: er...@forestpost.com
To: ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:56:49 -0400

>From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly limited, there must 
>be two defenders behind the offensive player.  I only saw one defender on the 
>goal line between the ball and the net.  The goal keeper was near the top of 
>the box to my eye.


Any experts care to chime in?



On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Don Ely wrote:
He wasn't offside...  Bad call...


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens  wrote:

Offside - Mexico goal will not stand. 





On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
> Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.

 Dude, so was I.  Ditto.




-- Ben

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



 
 



 
 





Eric Brouwer
IT Manager
www.forestpost.com
er...@forestpost.com
248.855.4333



 

 

  
_
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[RichardMcClary]

Timing is everything!

There must be two defenders (one of which may be the goal keeper) between 
the player and the goal line at the very moment the pass is made.  On a 
field as large as a football pitch, the officials all need sets of eyes 
going in multiple directions.

It's hard enough in ice hockey (where it is simply two static lines)...

Steve Ens  wrote on 06/11/2010 10:16:52 AM:

> Whooo!!!  

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Eric Brouwer  
wrote:
> From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly limited, 
> there must be two defenders behind the offensive player.  I only saw
> one defender on the goal line between the ball and the net.  The 
> goal keeper was near the top of the box to my eye. 
> 
> Any experts care to chime in?
> 
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Don Ely wrote:
> 
> He wasn't offside...  Bad call...

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens  wrote:
> Offside - Mexico goal will not stand. 
> 

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.

>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~

> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Eric Brouwer
> IT Manager
> www.forestpost.com
> er...@forestpost.com
> 248.855.4333
> 
> 

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

RE: VMware shops - Just a question

[Damien Solodow]

It depends.

If you're connecting directly to the ESX host, it's just root.

If you're connecting to vCenter, it's anyone who is a member of the
Administrators group on the vCenter server.

 

From: Craig Gauss [mailto:gau...@rhahealthcare.org] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 11:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: VMware shops - Just a question

 

Who is allowed access to the VI or vSphere client?

 

Craig Gauss,  Technical Supervisor/Security Officer
Riverview Hospital Association

 

 

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Alan Davies]

Well .. yes and no.  We call him the goalie .. that "2nd" chappy you're
talking about ;o)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football)
 
P.S.  only when the ball is in play to the offensive player.  You may
stand offside at any time without it being foul.  You're just not
allowed to receive the ball if you were offside when it was kicked to
you without bringing yourself onside first.



From: Eric Brouwer [mailto:er...@forestpost.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 15:57
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup


>From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly limited,
there must be two defenders behind the offensive player.  I only saw one
defender on the goal line between the ball and the net.  The goal keeper
was near the top of the box to my eye. 

Any experts care to chime in?

On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Don Ely wrote:


He wasn't offside...  Bad call...


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens 
wrote:


Offside - Mexico goal will not stand. 


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott
 wrote:


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr
 wrote:
> Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.


 Dude, so was I.  Ditto.


-- Ben

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





 

 





 

 




Eric Brouwer
IT Manager
www.forestpost.com
er...@forestpost.com
248.855.4333





 

 



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Doug Hampshire]

Don't need to. We have PowerShell instead.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Link wrote:

> I doubt any of the "geezers" here want to bring back DOS.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:15 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
>
>> All of this is "ok", I guess. Whether you, we, us, or anyone likes it, it
>> still represents "change". Good, bad, progressive or re-gressive is left to
>> individual interpretation. I for one don't have a problem with it because
>> again, I have the ability to not use the option. Therefore my little world
>> of searching isn't turned upside down because some college graduate
>> at Google suggested this feature as a way to appeal to a "younger and more
>> captive" audience. Thankfully the decision to implement didn't come down to
>> anyone from this list because most techies wanna get one fix in place and
>> keep it forever.while old tech geezers will always complain about "ANY" form
>> of change.
>> Bring back DOS!!!
>> Get off my lawn!!!
>>
>>  On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Ben Scott  wrote:
>>
>>>  On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:19 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
>>>  > Yes, normal people, outside of the
>>> > technical industry, make purchases based on the fancy images.
>>>
>>>  Sure.  And we all know how well that works out for them.
>>>
>>> > The search process is just that a simple query which
>>> > requires no effort.
>>>
>>>  Exactly.  So don't make it more complicated just for the sake of
>>> making it more complicated.
>>>
>>>  Simplicity has beauty in itself.
>>>
>>>  "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but
>>> when there is nothing left to remove."  -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>>>
>>>  This is something a lot of computer industry types don't seem to
>>> understand.  They think the longer the feature list, the more
>>> bells-and-whistles, the more *things* a program has, the better it
>>> must be.  In practice, it's often the opposite that's true.  The more
>>> stuff they add, the slower it gets, the more bugs there are, the more
>>> security issues, the higher the support burden, the harder it is to
>>> learn.
>>>
>>> > So again why not add some life to it.
>>>
>>>  What you are calling "life" I would call "gaudiness".  Now, that's a
>>> purely personal, aesthetic thing.  But I've got just as much as right
>>> to call it "obnoxious" as you do to call the classic page "stale".
>>>
>>>  On a more practical note, it takes longer to load a giant background
>>> image, and consumes more system resources.  Individually, it's a drop
>>> in the bucket, but how many times per day does the Google home page
>>> get loaded across the world?
>>>
>>> > Not only is change good, it's also necessary.
>>>
>>>  Again: Change for the sake of change alone is not progress.
>>>
>>>   Let's tear down every building on the planet
>>> and build new ones out of paper mache.  Change is good and necessary,
>>> right?  
>>>
>>> -- Ben
>>>
>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>>> ~   ~
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Steve Ens]

Whooo!!!

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Eric Brouwer  wrote:

> From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly limited, there
> must be two defenders behind the offensive player.  I only saw one defender
> on the goal line between the ball and the net.  The goal keeper was near the
> top of the box to my eye.
>
> Any experts care to chime in?
>
>  On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Don Ely wrote:
>
> He wasn't offside...  Bad call...
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens  wrote:
>
>> Offside - Mexico goal will not stand.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
>>> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.
>>>
>>>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.
>>>
>>> -- Ben
>>>
>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>>> ~   ~
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Brouwer
> IT Manager
> www.forestpost.com
> er...@forestpost.com
> 248.855.4333
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

RE: VMware shops - Just a question

[Jason Morris]

At first just the root user. Then I put the domain admins in. Then I gave 
helpdesk console access to some of the clients but no change capabilities to 
anything. It's all pretty configurable.

Does that help?
Jason

From: Craig Gauss [mailto:gau...@rhahealthcare.org]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:09 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: VMware shops - Just a question

Who is allowed access to the VI or vSphere client?


Craig Gauss,  Technical Supervisor/Security Officer
Riverview Hospital Association





--
The pages accompanying this email transmission contain information from MJMC, 
Inc., which
is confidential and/or privileged. The information is to be for the use of the 
individual
or entity named on this cover sheet. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
are
hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of 
this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in 
error, please
immediately notify us by telephone so that we can arrange for the retrieval of 
the original
document.

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

VMware shops - Just a question

[Craig Gauss]

Who is allowed access to the VI or vSphere client?
 

Craig Gauss,  Technical Supervisor/Security Officer
Riverview Hospital Association



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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Eric Brouwer]

 From what I understand, and my understanding is admittedly limited,  
there must be two defenders behind the offensive player.  I only saw  
one defender on the goal line between the ball and the net.  The goal  
keeper was near the top of the box to my eye.

Any experts care to chime in?

On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:51 AM, Don Ely wrote:

> He wasn't offside...  Bad call...
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens   
> wrote:
> Offside - Mexico goal will not stand.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott   
> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr   
> wrote:
> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.
>
>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


Eric Brouwer
IT Manager
www.forestpost.com
er...@forestpost.com
248.855.4333





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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Steve Ens]

Agreed...maybe the ref couldn't see over all the noise.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Don Ely  wrote:

> He wasn't offside...  Bad call...
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens  wrote:
>
>> Offside - Mexico goal will not stand.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
>>> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.
>>>
>>>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.
>>>
>>> -- Ben
>>>
>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>>> ~   ~
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

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

RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[Charlie Kaiser]

Check this out and see if it helps...

http://www.amset.info/exchange/twodomainsoneuser.asp

***
Charlie Kaiser
charl...@golden-eagle.org
Kingman, AZ
***  

> -Original Message-
> From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:19 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting 
> an error trying to send
> 
> Yes, perfectly correct.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting 
> an error trying to send
> 
>  
> 
> Is my analysis of your current setup correct?  Multiple 
> addresses on the same AD account?


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Don Ely]

He wasn't offside...  Bad call...

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Steve Ens  wrote:

> Offside - Mexico goal will not stand.
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
>> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.
>>
>>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.
>>
>> -- Ben
>>
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
>> ~   ~
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[Richard Stovall]

OK.  Thanks.

I don't know of a way to accomplish your goal with that setup.  The five
Exchange 2003-native solutions I know of are:

1) Unique AD accounts for each desired e-mail address and POP3 access to the
non-primary ones so that everything can be managed in a single Outlook
profile.  (1 Outlook Exchange account for the 'main' address + Outlook POP3
accounts for the secondary ones).  This allows the user to have everything
in a single Outlook profile and keeps replies and whatnot sent using the
correct address.

2) Unique AD accounts for each desired e-mail address and separate Outlook
profiles for each one.  If you're on Outlook 2007 or earlier, those versions
only support one Exchange account at a time, and you can only have one
instance of Outlook open at a time.  This means opening and closing each
Outlook profile all the time, or the use of something like "ExtraOutlook" (
http://www.hammerofgod.com/download.html)

3) Unique AD accounts for each desired e-mail address and a single Outlook
profile that has access to the secondary mailboxes.  (Configured on the
Advanced tab of the Outlook profile setup.)  This allows them to send in the
desired fashion, but replies are NOT sent from secondary addresses by
default.  In this scenario the person MUST choose the correct From: address
on each and every message that should go out with a sending address
different from the one associated with their AD account.

4) Set up distribution groups for the unique secondary addresses, make the
appropriate users members of the groups, and then give those users send as
permissions on the groups.  This allows them to send in the desired fashion,
but replies are NOT sent from secondary addresses by default.  In this
scenario the person MUST choose the correct From: address on each and every
message that should go out with a sending address different from the one
associated with their AD account.

5) Outlook 2010.  Multiple Exchange accounts are supported by a single
Outlook profile and all the proper separation is maintained by default.

There are apparently 3rd party tools to address situations like this, but I
have no experience with them.  These days, if you can get it, Outlook 2010
seems to be the perfect solution.

If there are other solutions out there I'd love to know about them.  Also,
If I've made any mistakes putting this together in a hurry I apologize.

Rs

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:18 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:

>  Yes, perfectly correct.
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> Is my analysis of your current setup correct?  Multiple addresses on the
> same AD account?
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David W. McSpadden 
> wrote:
>
> I want to be able to choose.
>
> In this case it is the Insurance department.
>
> They have to viable addresses:
>
> joe.u...@imcu.com
>
> And
>
> joe.u...@indianamembersinsurance.com
>
> If Joe User is talking to an insurance claimant they want to send and
> receive as the insurance account
>
> If they are just talking with us they want to use the imcu account.
>
>
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
>
> Also, I have 2 more departments that I am going to swing over to my
> exchange in the next couple of weeks.
>
> Some of my users will end up with as many as 4 smtp accounts because of
> their jobs.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 10:04 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> I think I get it now.  You added a second SMTP address to your account, and
> now you want that to show as the sender?
>
>
>
> Primary SMTP address = fred.flintst...@bedrock.com
>
> Secondary SMTP address = mr.sl...@bedrock.com
>
>
>
> And you want the mail to go out as Mr. Slate?
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David W. McSpadden 
> wrote:
>
> I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won’t that use my default
> SMTP??
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
> the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
> properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
> permission.
>
>
>
> I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your
> problem.  Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same
> user you're logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead
> of typing in the SM

Re: Printer issues

[Matthew W. Ross]

I have had a few HP printers which refuse to work well unless you turn off the 
"Bi-Directional Printing Support."

As for HP's fall from grace: We still by HP. I would be ecstatic if HP would 
offer a version of their drivers with just the .inf files and _required_ DLLs. 
Keep the full functionality bloatware separate, please!


--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District


- Original Message -
From: Ben Scott
[mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Fri, 11 Jun 2010
07:38:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Printer issues


> n Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, John Aldrich
>  wrote:
> > I’ve got a user with an HP OfficeJet 5600 series printer ...
> > I have NOT tried updating the drivers yet, so that’s something to think
> about.
> 
>   Definitely start there.  HP's drivers suck.  They seem to just
> release anything that compiles, and keep updating in shotgun-debugging
> mode.
> 
>   We made the mistake of buying an OJ 5610 once.  We ended up throwing it
> out.
> 
>   Oh how the mighty have fallen.
> 
> -- Ben
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
> 
> 

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

Re: Printer issues

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:41 AM, HELP_PC  wrote:
> Isn't by design that you get stucked if you send direct to the printer ?

  Yes.  If you disable print spooling, then when an application opens
the printer, the print pipeline gets connected directly to the I/O
port.  That means the application can't send more print data than the
printer can buffer (which on a 5600, is not much).  Other programs
should continue running uninterrupted, but that app will be blocked.
(Unless it does its own multi-processing.)

-- Ben

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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Steve Ens]

Offside - Mexico goal will not stand.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Ben Scott  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
> > Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.
>
>  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>

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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:28 AM, MarvinC  wrote ...

  Someone hack into MarvinC's computer and change his desktop color
scheme to angry fruit salad.  Change is good.  ;-)

-- Ben

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

R: Printer issues

[HELP_PC]

Isn't by design that you get stucked if you send direct to the printer ?
 
GuidoElia
HELPPC
 

  _  

Da: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Inviato: venerdì 11 giugno 2010 16.30
A: NT System Admin Issues
Oggetto: Printer issues



I've got a user with an HP OfficeJet 5600 series printer connected via USB. 
He's got XP Pro SP3 installed and just recently started having problems 
printing. The symptoms are that he can either print a whole multi-page document 
by printing directly to the printer *or* he can print just the first few pages 
by spooling to the printer. If he prints directly to the printer, it hangs his 
PC up until it's done printing.

 

I have NOT tried updating the drivers yet, so that's something to think about. 
Any other ideas? I'm pretty sure he's got enough RAM (he's got a Gig of RAM.)

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 

 


 


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:21 AM, N Parr  wrote:
> Dude he was joking.  Lighten up.

  Dude, so was I.  Ditto.

-- Ben

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Alan Davies]

That's ok .. tomato tomato (hmm .. that don't work so well in writing!).  ;)
 

-Original Message-
From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 15:22
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

Dude he was joking.  Lighten up. 

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:16 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Alan Davies  wrote:
> Yeah, but one medium sized country only caring about their sports and 
> not what most other nations jointly care about isn't the same as every 
> other nation having no idea/care about US only sports ;P

  The US is actually a fairly large country.  Depending on who you ask, it's 
either the third or fourth biggest for both population and land area, out of 
almost 200 countries in the world.  And, of course, the US has the most money, 
and produces the most "media content" (the last often being a case of quantity 
over quality, I think, but when you're talking about impact on popular culture, 
the spam effect matters).

  According to Wikipedia, the UK is 22nd in population and 79th in land mass.  
Cute little thing.  ;-)

  I am, of course, rooting for the US team in the World Cup, although I hold no 
illusions about their ability on the world stage.  I'll be happy if they only 
give England a good run for their money.  I'm not taking loss as a given, 
though -- your strange "association football"
has seen some real pick-up in the US over the past ten years or so, and 
over-confidence has been the downfall of too many things to count.
 (As a New Hampshire resident, I might point to the New England Patriots as a 
recent sports example)

-- Ben

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


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



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"



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

Re: Printer issues

[Ben Scott]

n Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, John Aldrich
 wrote:
> I’ve got a user with an HP OfficeJet 5600 series printer ...
> I have NOT tried updating the drivers yet, so that’s something to think about.

  Definitely start there.  HP's drivers suck.  They seem to just
release anything that compiles, and keep updating in shotgun-debugging
mode.

  We made the mistake of buying an OJ 5610 once.  We ended up throwing it out.

  Oh how the mighty have fallen.

-- Ben

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Alan Davies]

Ha .. cute!?  Overcrowded you mean ;)

Space is always something you notice in a big way in the US ... big wide
streets, pavements, large houses, countryside, etc.  There's nowhere in
mainland Britain you can't drive to in a day (traffic permitting!).
Which is just as well considering the cost of petrol ...
 

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 15:16
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup



  According to Wikipedia, the UK is 22nd in population and 79th in
land mass.  Cute little thing.  ;-)


-- Ben

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



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"



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

Printer issues

[John Aldrich]

I've got a user with an HP OfficeJet 5600 series printer connected via USB.
He's got XP Pro SP3 installed and just recently started having problems
printing. The symptoms are that he can either print a whole multi-page
document by printing directly to the printer *or* he can print just the
first few pages by spooling to the printer. If he prints directly to the
printer, it hangs his PC up until it's done printing.

 

I have NOT tried updating the drivers yet, so that's something to think
about. Any other ideas? I'm pretty sure he's got enough RAM (he's got a Gig
of RAM.)

 

John-AldrichTile-Tools

 


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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[MarvinC]

AltaVista? Thanks for making my point because they surely haven't
implemented any change, which supports your theory. Yet notice that we''re
not taking about them. Since they're business model hasn't changed much this
is why they sit where they sit. So you're correct "Employing strategies that
undermine ones primary objective is useless." Thankfully Google and
Microsoft don't yield to this limited perspective.



On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> Search is all about speed.  That's what made AltaVista awesome, and what
> largely propelled Google to its current heights.
>
> I have no time for scenery while I'm searching.  Employing strategies that
> undermine ones primary objective is useless.
>
> Let's hope they make the "feature" optional.
>
> -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker 
>
>
>  On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:12 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
>
>> Always odd to hear the very people who should be pushing for change
>> complain when they're presented. If no one thought to deploy or implement
>> new strategies things would stay the same. Hint this stale white background.
>> Other than the complacent minded, who wants that? Why not add some variety
>> and creativity to the search process? The beauty is having the ability to
>> change the background to one of your liking. The kewl thing is that 10 - 16
>> year old kids who use Google more than Bing for searches are excited by the
>> changes. So I hope Google keeps this feature and continue to build on it.
>> The rest of us "old cranky" techheads should chill out.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr <
>> michealespin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> --
>>> ME2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Ben Scott wrote:
>>>
 The last part might as well read, "After getting complaints from
 approximately the entire planet, we realized we had screwed the pooch
 big time".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[N Parr]

Dude he was joking.  Lighten up. 

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:16 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Alan Davies  wrote:
> Yeah, but one medium sized country only caring about their sports and 
> not what most other nations jointly care about isn't the same as every 
> other nation having no idea/care about US only sports ;P

  The US is actually a fairly large country.  Depending on who you ask, it's 
either the third or fourth biggest for both population and land area, out of 
almost 200 countries in the world.  And, of course, the US has the most money, 
and produces the most "media content" (the last often being a case of quantity 
over quality, I think, but when you're talking about impact on popular culture, 
the spam effect matters).

  According to Wikipedia, the UK is 22nd in population and 79th in land mass.  
Cute little thing.  ;-)

  I am, of course, rooting for the US team in the World Cup, although I hold no 
illusions about their ability on the world stage.  I'll be happy if they only 
give England a good run for their money.  I'm not taking loss as a given, 
though -- your strange "association football"
has seen some real pick-up in the US over the past ten years or so, and 
over-confidence has been the downfall of too many things to count.
 (As a New Hampshire resident, I might point to the New England Patriots as a 
recent sports example)

-- Ben

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


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

RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[David W. McSpadden]

Yes, perfectly correct.

 

  _  

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

Is my analysis of your current setup correct?  Multiple addresses on the
same AD account?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David W. McSpadden 
wrote:

I want to be able to choose.

In this case it is the Insurance department.

They have to viable addresses:

joe.u...@imcu.com

And 

joe.u...@indianamembersinsurance.com

If Joe User is talking to an insurance claimant they want to send and
receive as the insurance account

If they are just talking with us they want to use the imcu account.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Also, I have 2 more departments that I am going to swing over to my exchange
in the next couple of weeks.

Some of my users will end up with as many as 4 smtp accounts because of
their jobs.

 

Thanks

 

  _  

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:04 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

I think I get it now.  You added a second SMTP address to your account, and
now you want that to show as the sender?

 

Primary SMTP address = fred.flintst...@bedrock.com

Secondary SMTP address = mr.sl...@bedrock.com

 

And you want the mail to go out as Mr. Slate?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won't that use my default
SMTP??

 

  _  

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
permission.

 

I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your problem.
Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same user you're
logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead of typing in
the SMTP address you created and see if that works.

 

I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an
Exchange account in Outlook I'd try this first.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?

 

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
choosing Manage SendAs permission

On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:

I added the following address:

dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com

to my User account in AD.

I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
don't have permission.  I don't understand why this is an issue?

Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??

 

 




-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[Richard Stovall]

Is my analysis of your current setup correct?  Multiple addresses on the
same AD account?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:13 AM, David W. McSpadden wrote:

>  I want to be able to choose.
>
> In this case it is the Insurance department.
>
> They have to viable addresses:
>
> joe.u...@imcu.com
>
> And
>
> joe.u...@indianamembersinsurance.com
>
> If Joe User is talking to an insurance claimant they want to send and
> receive as the insurance account
>
> If they are just talking with us they want to use the imcu account.
>
>
>
> Does that make sense?
>
>
>
> Also, I have 2 more departments that I am going to swing over to my
> exchange in the next couple of weeks.
>
> Some of my users will end up with as many as 4 smtp accounts because of
> their jobs.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 10:04 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> I think I get it now.  You added a second SMTP address to your account, and
> now you want that to show as the sender?
>
>
>
> Primary SMTP address = fred.flintst...@bedrock.com
>
> Secondary SMTP address = mr.sl...@bedrock.com
>
>
>
> And you want the mail to go out as Mr. Slate?
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David W. McSpadden 
> wrote:
>
> I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won’t that use my default
> SMTP??
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM
>
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
> the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
> properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
> permission.
>
>
>
> I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your
> problem.  Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same
> user you're logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead
> of typing in the SMTP address you created and see if that works.
>
>
>
> I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an
> Exchange account in Outlook I'd try this first.
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden 
> wrote:
>
> I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
> choosing Manage SendAs permission
>
> On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:
>
> I added the following address:
>
> dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com
>
> to my User account in AD.
>
> I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
> don’t have permission.  I don’t understand why this is an issue?
>
> Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
> the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
> rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
> a question."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

RE: Patch Management - again

[Alan Davies]

That's a reason to stage and test before deployment, not a reason to not
auto download/install/reboot thereafter.  Depends on how flexible your
patching product is I guess .. ;)


a 

-Original Message-
From: Angus Scott-Fleming [mailto:angu...@geoapps.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 15:11
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

On 10 Jun 2010 at 15:05, paul d  wrote:

> I pretty much do the same here. Auto download, manual reboot.

I disabled "automatic download" after the failed Excel patch a few
months ago.  
Those machines with "auto download" had downloaded the bad patch. Even
though I 
waited to apply the updates until Microsoft had fixed the Excel patch,
those 
machines didn't check to see if there was a new patch, they just applied
the 
bad patch they had already grabbed.  I had to uninstall the patches and
update 
the machines manually.

I'll probably move to WSUS for my larger clients here soon based on
comments in 
this list.

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/





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


WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"



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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Alan Davies  wrote:
> Yeah, but one medium sized country only caring about their sports and not
> what most other nations jointly care about isn't the same as every other
> nation having no idea/care about US only sports ;P

  The US is actually a fairly large country.  Depending on who you
ask, it's either the third or fourth biggest for both population and
land area, out of almost 200 countries in the world.  And, of course,
the US has the most money, and produces the most "media content" (the
last often being a case of quantity over quality, I think, but when
you're talking about impact on popular culture, the spam effect
matters).

  According to Wikipedia, the UK is 22nd in population and 79th in
land mass.  Cute little thing.  ;-)

  I am, of course, rooting for the US team in the World Cup, although
I hold no illusions about their ability on the world stage.  I'll be
happy if they only give England a good run for their money.  I'm not
taking loss as a given, though -- your strange "association football"
has seen some real pick-up in the US over the past ten years or so,
and over-confidence has been the downfall of too many things to count.
 (As a New Hampshire resident, I might point to the New England
Patriots as a recent sports example)

-- Ben

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

RE: Patch Management - again

[Alan Davies]

WSUS is great .. as long as you don't have too many cooks sticking their
proverbials in the broth!!  I've used in in tight (>1000 user)
environments and I've participated in it in 320,000 plus user
environments.  It really needs someone to tightly control it, understand
it and maintain it consistently with a single strategy.
 
I've used Shavlik for servers in the past (a bit expensive for
workstations too) with reasonable success.  Auto-rebooting is perfectly
fine for more servers, contrary to popular belief.  Control it via your
schedule agreed in Change Control, don't just willy nilly do the whole
lot at 3am some night!  Leave Exchange, ISA, DBs, etc. that are a bit
more fragile to be rebooted manually (usually better to stop app
services first, then reboot).
 
 
a



From: Joe Tinney [mailto:jtin...@lastar.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 13:56
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Patch Management - again



+1

Prior to that we used WSUS for the workstations. On the servers, we use
WSUS to auto-download and do a manual install.

WSUS is really rock solid.

From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:32 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

 

We use the Dell Kace KBOX here.  It gets its patching stream from
Patchlink (not that it really matters).  I have no issues with it, and
it's very easy to use.  KBOX is a full management product, so that might
be overkill if you looking for patching exclusively.  

 



>>> "Joseph Heaton"  6/10/2010 11:17 AM >>>
I've been asked to research this arena again.

What are you guys using for automating patch management for your
servers?

Our environment:

A lot of VmWare
Mostly Server 2k8, some 2k8R2, some 2K3.

Not worried about 3rd party application patching within this project.


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

 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message. 

 

 

 

 



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[David W. McSpadden]

I want to be able to choose.

In this case it is the Insurance department.

They have to viable addresses:

joe.u...@imcu.com

And 

joe.u...@indianamembersinsurance.com

If Joe User is talking to an insurance claimant they want to send and
receive as the insurance account

If they are just talking with us they want to use the imcu account.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Also, I have 2 more departments that I am going to swing over to my exchange
in the next couple of weeks.

Some of my users will end up with as many as 4 smtp accounts because of
their jobs.

 

Thanks

 

  _  

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 10:04 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

I think I get it now.  You added a second SMTP address to your account, and
now you want that to show as the sender?

 

Primary SMTP address = fred.flintst...@bedrock.com

Secondary SMTP address = mr.sl...@bedrock.com

 

And you want the mail to go out as Mr. Slate?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won't that use my default
SMTP??

 

  _  

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM


To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
permission.

 

I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your problem.
Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same user you're
logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead of typing in
the SMTP address you created and see if that works.

 

I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an
Exchange account in Outlook I'd try this first.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?

 

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
choosing Manage SendAs permission

On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:

I added the following address:

dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com

to my User account in AD.

I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
don't have permission.  I don't understand why this is an issue?

Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??

 

 




-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Re: Patch Management - again

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

On 10 Jun 2010 at 15:05, paul d  wrote:

> I pretty much do the same here. Auto download, manual reboot.

I disabled "automatic download" after the failed Excel patch a few months ago.  
Those machines with "auto download" had downloaded the bad patch. Even though I 
waited to apply the updates until Microsoft had fixed the Excel patch, those 
machines didn't check to see if there was a new patch, they just applied the 
bad patch they had already grabbed.  I had to uninstall the patches and update 
the machines manually.

I'll probably move to WSUS for my larger clients here soon based on comments in 
this list.

--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-290-5038
Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/





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

Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[Richard Stovall]

I think I get it now.  You added a second SMTP address to your account, and
now you want that to show as the sender?

Primary SMTP address = fred.flintst...@bedrock.com
Secondary SMTP address = mr.sl...@bedrock.com

And you want the mail to go out as Mr. Slate?

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

>  I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won’t that use my default
> SMTP??
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
> the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
> properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
> permission.
>
>
>
> I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your
> problem.  Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same
> user you're logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead
> of typing in the SMTP address you created and see if that works.
>
>
>
> I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an
> Exchange account in Outlook I'd try this first.
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden 
> wrote:
>
> I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
> choosing Manage SendAs permission
>
> On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:
>
> I added the following address:
>
> dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com
>
> to my User account in AD.
>
> I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
> don’t have permission.  I don’t understand why this is an issue?
>
> Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
> the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
> rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
> a question."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[David W. McSpadden]

I think you have it but If I pick from the GAL won't that use my default
SMTP??

 

  _  

From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:57 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
permission.

 

I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your problem.
Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same user you're
logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead of typing in
the SMTP address you created and see if that works.

 

I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an
Exchange account in Outlook I'd try this first.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?

 

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
choosing Manage SendAs permission

On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:

I added the following address:

dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com

to my User account in AD.

I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
don't have permission.  I don't understand why this is an issue?

Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??

 

 




-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[Richard Stovall]

If this is indeed your problem, you have to enable "Advanced Features" from
the View menu in ADUC.  Once that's done you can see the Security tab on the
properties of the user object in question which is where you set the proper
permission.

I have to say, however, that I'm not convinced this will solve your problem.
 Are you trying to send as yourself?  In other words, as the same user
you're logged in as?  If so, pick your account out of the GAL instead of
typing in the SMTP address you created and see if that works.

I can think of some other possible issues as well, but if this is an
Exchange account in Outlook I'd try this first.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:40 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:

>  I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error
> trying to send
>
>
>
> grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
> choosing Manage SendAs permission
>
> On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:
>
> I added the following address:
>
> dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com
>
> to my User account in AD.
>
> I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
> don’t have permission.  I don’t understand why this is an issue?
>
> Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
> the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
> rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
> a question."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

RE: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[David W. McSpadden]

I read that in a KB but I am unclear at to where that is?



 

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying
to send

 

grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
choosing Manage SendAs permission

On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:

I added the following address:

dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com

to my User account in AD.

I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
don't have permission.  I don't understand why this is an issue?

Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??

 

 




-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

 

 

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

Re: Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[James Rankin]

grant the SendAs permission by right-clicking on your Exchange mailbox and
choosing Manage SendAs permission

On 11 June 2010 14:28, David McSpadden  wrote:

>  I added the following address:
>
> dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com
>
> to my User account in AD.
>
> I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me I
> don’t have permission.  I don’t understand why this is an issue?
>
> Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

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

Added SMTP address to Exchange and I am getting an error trying to send

[David McSpadden]

I added the following address:

dav...@indianamembersinsurance.com

to my User account in AD.

I try to send  using the FROM: button in Outlook and It keeps telling me
I don't have permission.  I don't understand why this is an issue?

Is it a Receipient Policy in Exchange 2003 that I have missed??


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

Re: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!

[Bob Hartung]

I've been using it for about 4 years now and it's a very useful tool. In 
addition to being able to access multiple PCs simultaneously using VNC, RDP and 
Citrix ICA, it comes with a number of remote management utilities like remote 
booting, wake-on-lan, remote registry editor and quite a few others.

I use it to access about 130 PCs and servers in 3 locations.


--

Bob Hartung
Wisco Industries, Inc.
736 Janesville St.
Oregon, WI 53575
Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
Fax: (608) 835-7399
e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com
  _  

From: Matthew W. Ross [mailto:mr...@ephrataschools.org]
To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:11:14 -0500
Subject: Remote Desktop Client... Something I like!

Not too long ago I asked if this list knew of any good remote support apps. I 
just wanted to chime in with one I think fits the bill, and maybe find out if 
anybody else here is using it:
  
  SmartCode VNC Manager
  
  I'm evaluating the Enterprise Edition, and it seems to do everything I want 
it to do.
  
  
  --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! ~
~   ~

RE: Patch Management - again

[Joe Tinney]

+1

Prior to that we used WSUS for the workstations. On the servers, we use
WSUS to auto-download and do a manual install.

WSUS is really rock solid.

From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:32 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Patch Management - again

 

We use the Dell Kace KBOX here.  It gets its patching stream from
Patchlink (not that it really matters).  I have no issues with it, and
it's very easy to use.  KBOX is a full management product, so that might
be overkill if you looking for patching exclusively.  

 



>>> "Joseph Heaton"  6/10/2010 11:17 AM >>>
I've been asked to research this arena again.

What are you guys using for automating patch management for your
servers?

Our environment:

A lot of VmWare
Mostly Server 2k8, some 2k8R2, some 2K3.

Not worried about 3rd party application patching within this project.


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

 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message. 

 

 

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Alan Davies]

Reminds me of a US TV series that came over here recently .. "The Mentalist" 
..!  Oh, how everyone laughed!  It apparently has a different meaning here, 
being a slang word for someone a bit ... well ... mental (and not in a good 
way)!
 
Tangents .. gotta love 'em ...
 
 


From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 13:27
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup


Well Canada is on this side of the pond also.
 
No, rounders is a movie about gambling with Matt Damon in it.  ;^)



From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup


Yeah, but one medium sized country only caring about their sports and not what 
most other nations jointly care about isn't the same as every other nation 
having no idea/care about US only sports ;P
 
I presume you mean ice hockey btw, which at least means Canada cares too on 
that count ;o)   Actual hockey is played worldwide, but not the most followed 
sport ever!
 
 
P.S. "softball" ...?  Is that like rounders?



From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 12:54
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup


See now the problem is that Americans care about "soccer" in the same way 
England, and most of the rest of the world, care about American football.  And 
in America it's baseball season and hockey just finished up.  So everyone on 
this side of the pond is outside at their kids T-Ball, softball and baseball 
games.



From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup


As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of 
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here 
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow evening in 
the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow "soccer" and possibly 
aren't even aware that this tournament is about to begin, but I'm hoping that 
maybe someone does, in the interests of some friendly rivalry :-)

-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."



 

 

 

 



WARNING:

The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

 

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

 

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"

 

 

 

 

 



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

RE: DNS settings tool

[David W. McSpadden]

Ahh
Thanx again.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 8:36 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: DNS settings tool

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:
> IndianaMembersInsurance.COM was messed up by the ISP making
> Mail.IndianaMembersInsurance.com into
> Mail.IndianaMembersInsurance.IndianaMembersInsurance.com.

  I think I mentioned recently that in names like
, the trailing dot is significant.
Now you know why.  The trailing dot represents the root zone, and
tells DNS software the name is fully qualified.  Without a trailing
dot, DNS software generally assumes it has to append the current zone
origin on to a name.

  So when someone enters  into your
zone file, the origin (your second-level domain) gets appended,
yielding .
 We humans can look at that and see it's stupid, but the computer
doesn't know that.

  When working with DNS issues, it's a good idea to get in the habit
of specifying FQDNs with the trailing dot all the time.

-- Ben

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




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

Re: DNS settings tool

[Ben Scott]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:48 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:
> IndianaMembersInsurance.COM was messed up by the ISP making
> Mail.IndianaMembersInsurance.com into
> Mail.IndianaMembersInsurance.IndianaMembersInsurance.com.

  I think I mentioned recently that in names like
, the trailing dot is significant.
Now you know why.  The trailing dot represents the root zone, and
tells DNS software the name is fully qualified.  Without a trailing
dot, DNS software generally assumes it has to append the current zone
origin on to a name.

  So when someone enters  into your
zone file, the origin (your second-level domain) gets appended,
yielding .
 We humans can look at that and see it's stupid, but the computer
doesn't know that.

  When working with DNS issues, it's a good idea to get in the habit
of specifying FQDNs with the trailing dot all the time.

-- Ben

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

Re: Google and stupid background pictures

[Eric Brouwer]

> Therefore my little world of searching isn't turned upside down  
> because some college graduate at Google suggested this feature as a  
> way to appeal to a "younger and more captive" audience.


I think this is EXACTLY what happened, and the problem.  Some over  
entitled shot hot graduate from some prestigious school gets their  
start with Google.  Immediately wants to change things because  
everyone has told them their whole life how great they are, and their  
ideas are the best.  Google execs think, never mind our years of  
actual experience and wild success, we should listen to this!

Fail.

On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:15 PM, MarvinC wrote:

> All of this is "ok", I guess. Whether you, we, us, or anyone likes  
> it, it still represents "change". Good, bad, progressive or re- 
> gressive is left to individual interpretation. I for one don't have  
> a problem with it because again, I have the ability to not use the  
> option. Therefore my little world of searching isn't turned upside  
> down because some college graduate at Google suggested this feature  
> as a way to appeal to a "younger and more captive" audience.  
> Thankfully the decision to implement didn't come down to anyone from  
> this list because most techies wanna get one fix in place and keep  
> it forever.while old tech geezers will always complain about "ANY"  
> form of change.
> Bring back DOS!!!
> Get off my lawn!!!
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Ben Scott   
> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:19 PM, MarvinC  wrote:
> > Yes, normal people, outside of the
> > technical industry, make purchases based on the fancy images.
>
>  Sure.  And we all know how well that works out for them.
>
> > The search process is just that a simple query which
> > requires no effort.
>
>  Exactly.  So don't make it more complicated just for the sake of
> making it more complicated.
>
>  Simplicity has beauty in itself.
>
>  "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but
> when there is nothing left to remove."  -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>  This is something a lot of computer industry types don't seem to
> understand.  They think the longer the feature list, the more
> bells-and-whistles, the more *things* a program has, the better it
> must be.  In practice, it's often the opposite that's true.  The more
> stuff they add, the slower it gets, the more bugs there are, the more
> security issues, the higher the support burden, the harder it is to
> learn.
>
> > So again why not add some life to it.
>
>  What you are calling "life" I would call "gaudiness".  Now, that's a
> purely personal, aesthetic thing.  But I've got just as much as right
> to call it "obnoxious" as you do to call the classic page "stale".
>
>  On a more practical note, it takes longer to load a giant background
> image, and consumes more system resources.  Individually, it's a drop
> in the bucket, but how many times per day does the Google home page
> get loaded across the world?
>
> > Not only is change good, it's also necessary.
>
>  Again: Change for the sake of change alone is not progress.
>
>   Let's tear down every building on the planet
> and build new ones out of paper mache.  Change is good and necessary,
> right?  
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>
>
>
>


Eric Brouwer
IT Manager
www.forestpost.com
er...@forestpost.com
248.855.4333





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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[N Parr]

Well Canada is on this side of the pond also.
 
No, rounders is a movie about gambling with Matt Damon in it.  ;^)



From: Alan Davies [mailto:adav...@cls-services.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:08 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup


Yeah, but one medium sized country only caring about their sports and not what 
most other nations jointly care about isn't the same as every other nation 
having no idea/care about US only sports ;P
 
I presume you mean ice hockey btw, which at least means Canada cares too on 
that count ;o)   Actual hockey is played worldwide, but not the most followed 
sport ever!
 
 
P.S. "softball" ...?  Is that like rounders?



From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 12:54
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup


See now the problem is that Americans care about "soccer" in the same way 
England, and most of the rest of the world, care about American football.  And 
in America it's baseball season and hockey just finished up.  So everyone on 
this side of the pond is outside at their kids T-Ball, softball and baseball 
games.



From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup


As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of 
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here 
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow evening in 
the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow "soccer" and possibly 
aren't even aware that this tournament is about to begin, but I'm hoping that 
maybe someone does, in the interests of some friendly rivalry :-)

-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."



 

 

 

 



WARNING:

The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

 

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

 

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"

 

 

 


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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[James Rankin]

I think there is no pressure on England really, as last time we met in the
World Cup (in 1950), the US won :-)

On 11 June 2010 13:01, Hart, Robert  wrote:

> Oh He__, if England wins it will just be another match that was expected.
> However, if US wins it is going to be one big statement that will really set
> the stage for the World Cup.  Besides todays opener for South Africa to
> hopefully advance through their group the US/England match is the next
> biggest and should be a great game if not a blow out by England.
>
>
>
>
>
> Go USA….
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gary Whitten [mailto:li...@undiscoveredworlds.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 7:39 AM
>
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* RE: Utterly OT - World Cup
>
>
>
> We have a number of people who work in my company in the US from the
> various UK nations (not sure how to properly phrase that) but none that I
> closely work with from England itself.  That being said, I've seen a Hyundai
> SUV with an England car-window flag all week out in the parking lot.
>
>
>
> I will be at a viewing party tomorrow for the big game tomorrow and will
> (hopefully) watch Rooney lament missed chances.  I just hope it's a good
> game with good officiating.   If anyone's in central New England, join us at
> Nashua Gardens in downtown Nashua.
>
>
>
> GO US!!!
> --
>
> *From:* James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 11, 2010 3:22 AM
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Utterly OT - World Cup
>
> As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of
> England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here
> reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow evening in
> the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow "soccer" and
> possibly aren't even aware that this tournament is about to begin, but I'm
> hoping that maybe someone does, in the interests of some friendly rivalry
> :-)
>
> --
> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
> the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
> rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
> a question."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Alan Davies]

Yeah, but one medium sized country only caring about their sports and
not what most other nations jointly care about isn't the same as every
other nation having no idea/care about US only sports ;P
 
I presume you mean ice hockey btw, which at least means Canada cares too
on that count ;o)   Actual hockey is played worldwide, but not the most
followed sport ever!
 
 
P.S. "softball" ...?  Is that like rounders?



From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] 
Sent: 11 June 2010 12:54
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup


See now the problem is that Americans care about "soccer" in the same
way England, and most of the rest of the world, care about American
football.  And in America it's baseball season and hockey just finished
up.  So everyone on this side of the pond is outside at their kids
T-Ball, softball and baseball games.



From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup


As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow
evening in the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow
"soccer" and possibly aren't even aware that this tournament is about to
begin, but I'm hoping that maybe someone does, in the interests of some
friendly rivalry :-)

-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question."



 

 

 

 



WARNING:
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.

If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.

"CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE"


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

Re: Scripting -- How to Echo Spaces???

[Angus Scott-Fleming]

On 10 Jun 2010 at 14:49, Andrew S. Baker  wrote:

> Fair enough.  I can't remember when I've had that not work, though. 
> 
> I've seen a lot of software that deliberately treats ALT-160, ALT-32 and
> ALT-255 the same way. 
> 
> Cross platform support should be tested, definitely.

You could always use XCHANGE or XCHANG32 from Clay's Utilities to change the 
ALT-160, ALT-32 or ALT-255s to ASCII spaces after the fact.  


--
Angus Scott-Fleming
GeoApps, Tucson, Arizona
1-520-895-3270
Security Blog: http://geoapps.com/



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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Hart, Robert]

Oh He__, if England wins it will just be another match that was
expected.  However, if US wins it is going to be one big statement that
will really set the stage for the World Cup.  Besides todays opener for
South Africa to hopefully advance through their group the US/England
match is the next biggest and should be a great game if not a blow out
by England.  

 

 

Go USA 

 

 

 

From: Gary Whitten [mailto:li...@undiscoveredworlds.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 7:39 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

 

We have a number of people who work in my company in the US from the
various UK nations (not sure how to properly phrase that) but none that
I closely work with from England itself.  That being said, I've seen a
Hyundai SUV with an England car-window flag all week out in the parking
lot.

 

I will be at a viewing party tomorrow for the big game tomorrow and will
(hopefully) watch Rooney lament missed chances.  I just hope it's a good
game with good officiating.   If anyone's in central New England, join
us at Nashua Gardens in downtown Nashua.

 

GO US!!!



From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup

As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow
evening in the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow
"soccer" and possibly aren't even aware that this tournament is about to
begin, but I'm hoping that maybe someone does, in the interests of some
friendly rivalry :-)

-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question."

 

 

 

 

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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[N Parr]

See now the problem is that Americans care about "soccer" in the same
way England, and most of the rest of the world, care about American
football.  And in America it's baseball season and hockey just finished
up.  So everyone on this side of the pond is outside at their kids
T-Ball, softball and baseball games.



From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 2:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup


As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow
evening in the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow
"soccer" and possibly aren't even aware that this tournament is about to
begin, but I'm hoping that maybe someone does, in the interests of some
friendly rivalry :-)

-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put
into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am
not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could
provoke such a question."



 

 


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

RE: DNS settings tool

[David W. McSpadden]

Thanks. I will change up the batch file for the dig.
Understood about the PTR.
IMCU.ORG ended up being completely fine but 
IndianaMembersInsurance.COM was messed up by the ISP making 
Mail.IndianaMembersInsurance.com into
Mail.IndianaMembersInsurance.IndianaMembersInsurance.com.
Made for a long day of testing
Thanks again.

-Original Message-
From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 8:04 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: DNS settings tool

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:44 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:
> I have created a batch file and copied the output below it.

  A... there's better ways to do what I think you're trying to do.

dig +noall +ques +ans ANY imcu.org. www.imcu.org. ftp.imcu.org.
mail.imcu.org. webmail.imcu.org. pop.imcu.org. smtp.imcu.org.
mx.imcu.org. mx1.imcu.org. board.imcu.org. @pdns1.ultradns.net.

  The "+noall" option shuts off all output that you don't explicitly
turn on.  Then we say we're only interested in the question
(query/request) and answer sections.  (Note that hiding so much
information can sometimes be misleading, but it's good if you just
want to know what records exist and don't care about how/why they
don't.)

  What I see is that some of the names you're asking about exist, and
some do not.  Subdomains for , , and  all exist under
.  The rest do not exist.  Also, all I see are NS and A
records.  No MX records, no TXT records.

> I don't think my ISP set the PTR records?

  One thing to understand is that DNS records are basically all
independent of each other.  So the lack of PTR records won't keep you
from getting other records (assuming those other records exist).  In
other words, lack of PTR records isn't causing  to
not work.  :)

  Another thing is that PTR records don't come from forward lookup
zones like .  PTR records come from reverse lookup zones,
which will be "owned" by your network connectivity provider.  That's
usually not your domain registrar, web host, etc.

  DNS has to play some tricks on you to make reverse lookup work.
When you ask DNS "What name is associated with 206.18.123.221?", the
resolver library turns that into a query for PTR records with the
domain name <221.123.18.206.in-addr.arpa.>.  The order of the IP
address octets is reversed because DNS puts the most significant
labels to the right.

  You can tell DIG to build that kind of query for you with the -x switch:

dig -x 206.18.123.221

  That gives me a PTR record with RHS (right hand side) of
<03030611n4m055.imcu.local.>.  That's not a valid domain name for the
public Internet, so you've got something wrong there, too.  But it's
unrelated to the problems with the forward lookups.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM, David W. McSpadden  wrote:
> If I asked them to make these changes:
[table cut]
> I should see:
[output cut]

  The TXT and MX records look good, as far as DNS goes.  (Meaning: I
can't tell you if you have the right IP address, and I don't know
enough about your mail infrastructure to tell you what your SPF
records should say.)

  You're requesting an "Add" for an A record for the 
domain name.  That domain already has an A record, at the IP address
you give.  DNS generally allows multiple resource records for any
given domain, so you can easily create duplicates if your ISP isn't
checking your requests.  While a duplicate A record prolly isn't going
to hurt anything, I wouldn't recommend it.

  The request for a PTR record is all wrong.  :)
<221.123.18.206.in-addr.arpa.> is the domain (left hand side);
 is the RHS; and it has to go to a different service
provider.

-- Ben

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





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

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[John Cook]

I've been a Tifosi since 1970, nuff said!
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families


From: Alan Davies 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Fri Jun 11 07:19:59 2010
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

Well .. I've always been a fan, regardless of what billionaires try to do to 
the sport in the name of blatant commercialisation ;o)  I think this year and 
last have seen a huge shakeup and far more competitive landscape.  Funnily 
enough, when Schumi retired, a lot of people figured that would be a good time 
to start watching again!!  I guess no one is every happy in any sport if a team 
or person starts dominating - everyone loves the underdog story!

There have been some really dumb witch hunts in recent years and idiotic 
decisions on rule changes, etc., but hopefully with Mosley gone much of that 
will calm down now.  Not sure about the new points system yet ... I think it's 
a bit too far, but hey - it sure as hell encourages winning as we saw in Turkey!


From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: 11 June 2010 12:04
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

I quit watching F1 when Schumacher retired, Bernie E turned it into a farce 
with rules changes every 2 weeks. I was a huge fan during the Prost - Senna 
era. I was never a huge Ayrton fan but that guy could drive in the wet like no 
one else,
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families


From: Alan Davies 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
Sent: Fri Jun 11 04:32:54 2010
Subject: RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

Ha ... I bet there were a few Googles for the word "soccer" just to find out 
what on earth it was! ;o)  Football, as the rest of the world doesn't call that 
American pastime, has a strange history over there .. even with Beckham joining 
forces temporarily!  F1 suffers the same fate - the rest of the world watches 
and the US prefers cars that only ever turn left ;P

Ok ok .. enough ribbing - at least they have good Olympic athletes and take 
notice of that!  Wander if they'll play it "safe" with a 1-0 or go all out ...

Back (loosely) on topic, we're holding our breath for the first daytime England 
match bandwidth wise!  We've even arranged a meeting room with light 
refreshments to try and get those who want (and are allowed) to watch it to 
watch it on a telly and not streamed in HD ..


a


From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 11 June 2010 08:22
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup

As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of 
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here 
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow evening in 
the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow "soccer" and possibly 
aren't even aware that this tournament is about to begin, but I'm hoping that 
maybe someone does, in the interests of some friendly rivalry :-)

--
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the 
machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly 
to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."








WARNING:

The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be 
legally privileged.



If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this 
email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named 
addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or 
any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete 
the same and any copies.



"CLS Services Ltd — Registered in England No 4132704 — Registered Office: 
Exchange Tower — One Harbour Exchange Square — London E14 9GE"








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 recip

Re: Utterly OT - World Cup

[James Kerr]

I look forward to the game tomorrow with you guys. I'm not really into 
soccer but I will probably check out that game. I find it interesting 
that soccer is becoming more popular here in the US over the years. 
Also, I am upset by the hand of God 2 as I was born and raised in Ireland.

James


On 6/11/2010 7:05 AM, James Rankin wrote:
> Cool. We'll toast them in the knockout phase :-)
>
> On 11 June 2010 12:02, James Kerr  > wrote:
>
> Um dude? My wife is Argentinian.
>
>
> On 6/11/2010 3:22 AM, James Rankin wrote:
>
> As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the
> empty north of England, I just thought I'd put a quick post
> for all the Americans here reminding them that England will be
> whupping their butts tomorrow evening in the World Cup. I know
> 99.9% of you probably don't follow "soccer" and possibly
> aren't even aware that this tournament is about to begin, but
> I'm hoping that maybe someone does, in the interests of some
> friendly rivalry :-)
>
> -- 
> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if
> you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers
> come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
> confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
>
>
>
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put 
> into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am 
> not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that 
> could provoke such a question."
>
>   


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

RE: Utterly OT - World Cup

[Gary Whitten]

We have a number of people who work in my company in the US from the various
UK nations (not sure how to properly phrase that) but none that I closely
work with from England itself.  That being said, I've seen a Hyundai SUV
with an England car-window flag all week out in the parking lot.
 
I will be at a viewing party tomorrow for the big game tomorrow and will
(hopefully) watch Rooney lament missed chances.  I just hope it's a good
game with good officiating.   If anyone's in central New England, join us at
Nashua Gardens in downtown Nashua.
 
GO US!!!

  _  

From: James Rankin [mailto:kz2...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 3:22 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Utterly OT - World Cup


As there is no-one from the USA in my company here in the empty north of
England, I just thought I'd put a quick post for all the Americans here
reminding them that England will be whupping their butts tomorrow evening in
the World Cup. I know 99.9% of you probably don't follow "soccer" and
possibly aren't even aware that this tournament is about to begin, but I'm
hoping that maybe someone does, in the interests of some friendly rivalry
:-)

-- 
"On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into
the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able
rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such
a question."



 


 


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